Following US President Donald Trump's threats in recent weeks to take over Greenland, initially not ruling out the use of military force, more and more senior European officials believe it is time to face the truth - Trump's America is no longer a reliable trading partner, much less a reliable security ally, and Europe needs to urgently think about its future.
“There is a change in US policy, and in many ways it is permanent“, a senior EU official told “Politico“. “Waiting for it to pass is not a solution. What needs to be done is an orderly and coordinated move towards a new reality,” he added.
Absent a major shift in the U.S. approach, the process is likely to end in a radical reshaping of the West that will reverse the global balance of power. The consequences will range from economic damage to transatlantic relations to security risks as Europe tries to defend itself without American help before it is fully ready to do so.
But for some European leaders, a shared future for Western allies without the United States is entirely possible, the publication notes. For starters, European countries, including non-EU countries such as Britain and Norway, have spent much of Trump’s second term working in an increasingly effective group that is now functioning without America: the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” in support of Ukraine.
National security advisers from 35 countries are in constant contact, meeting frequently online and in person. They are now accustomed to seeking multilateral solutions in a world where Trump is a big part of the problem.
And it’s not just at the expert level – national leaders themselves are starting to work in new, tight formats. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, as well as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Italian Prime Minister Meloni are writing to each other regularly – often in the same group chat.
Over the past year, they have developed a well-honed routine of exchanging messages whenever Trump does something potentially damaging. “When things start moving fast, coordination is difficult, and this [group chat] is really effective,” a representative of one of the European leaders told Politico.
The approach of European leaders over the past year has been mainly to remain calm and respond to concrete policy actions, rather than to react to Trump’s provocative words.
But the US president’s vociferous behavior on Greenland has led to a hardening of tone against threats. Even Starmer - usually the most reserved of European leaders - called the threat of tariffs "wrong", including in a direct conversation with Trump on Sunday.
The Greenland crisis has focused attention on the question of how to move forward without America at its side.
The "Coalition of the Willing", which began as a format for Ukraine, could potentially become the basis for a new security alliance in an era when the US no longer supports NATO and European security. The new agreement would not exclude cooperation with America, but it would not take it for granted either.
Moreover, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky himself is part of the group of European leaders, and Ukraine is the most militarized country among those represented - with a huge army, high-tech drone production and practical experience of large-scale war.
If Kiev's military potential were combined with that of France, Germany, Poland and Britain, the possible strength of such a coalition would be significant and would include both nuclear and non-nuclear states, the publication writes.
Although the need for Europe to defend itself with less American support is an old topic, recent days have brought a series of initiatives in Brussels. The EU has officially decided to be able to defend itself by 2030. European Defense Commissioner Andrzej Kubilius has proposed the creation of a standing EU army of 100,000 men.
“Would the United States be militarily stronger if it had 50 state-level armies instead of a single federal army?“, he asked at a security conference in Sweden on Sunday, as quoted by “Politico“. “Fifty state-level defense policies and budgets instead of one common federal defense policy and budget? If our answer is “no“, if the United States would not be stronger, then — what are we waiting for?“, he added.
According to Kubilius, Europe's defense readiness depends on three pillars: more investment in production capacity; institutions that are prepared and well-organized; and the political will to deter and, if necessary, to wage war. Merely increasing the funding of Europe's current defense structure will not meet these requirements, he said. "We need to start investing our resources in such a way that we can fight as Europe, not just as a collection of 27 national 'bonsai armies,'" Kubilius said, using a phrase from former EU High Representative Josep Borrell.
To solve the problem of political will, Kubilius proposes the creation of a European Security Council — an idea that has long been supported by French President Macron and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“The European Security Council could be made up of key permanent members, along with several rotating members, including the member state that holds the Council presidency“, Kubilius explained. The proposed security council should also include the United Kingdom, he added.
Spain has also recently pushed for the EU to move towards creating a common army as a deterrent. The region should first focus on pooling its available material resources to better integrate its defense industry, and then mobilizing a “Coalition of the Willing”, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albarez told Reuters, noting that the chance of gathering critical mass was greater at the bloc level than at the national level. "Joint efforts would be more effective than 27 separate national armies," he added.
Albarez stressed that the aim of such an army was not to replace NATO, "but we must show that Europe is not a place that will allow itself to be blackmailed with military or economic means."
At the beginning of the year, Germany already took the first steps towards strengthening its army. German young people who have reached the age of 18 began receiving a mandatory questionnaire to register their fitness for military service, under a law passed last month. Joining the army remains voluntary for now, but the law allows the government to introduce compulsory service to achieve its goal of building the "strongest army in Europe."
In November last year, the number of active-duty soldiers reached 184,000 - an increase of 2,500 since May, when Chancellor Merz first told parliament that the Bundeswehr "must become the strongest conventional army in Europe."
"This is the largest number in a very long time and is already the largest force we have had since 2021," Timo Graf, a senior researcher at the Bundeswehr Center for Military History and Social Sciences in Potsdam, told Al Jazeera.
Berlin has committed to NATO to reach 260,000 active duty troops by 2035, and to double its reservists to 200,000.
This has caused concern in Moscow, but the threat from Russia has turned out to be only one side of the decision. The loss of trust in the United States over the past year has played no less a role, commented “Al Jazeera“.
A survey by public broadcaster ZDF in June 2025 showed that 73 percent of Germans do not expect Washington to continue to guarantee Europe's security. By December, this share had risen to 84 percent. “People who are in favor of NATO and those who are pro-European come together in the idea of a “European NATO”, said Graf. “Germans still value NATO as a defense organization. They simply do not believe that the Americans will fulfill their role, and support the idea of a European NATO,“ the analyst added.
Meanwhile, the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri) compared the combined forces of the 30 European NATO member states excluding Turkey with Moscow's military potential in the study “Europe-Russia: Assessment of the Balance of Power“, writes the French newspaper “Figaro“.
Defense is above all a matter of budget, the document notes. Russian military spending in 2024 is estimated at about 13 trillion rubles, or $145 billion. “When calculated at purchasing power parity with the West, these costs amount to about $460 billion - an amount approximately equal to the total military spending of the European NATO allies for the same year,“ the FIMO said.
In a land confrontation, Russia has numerical superiority. Its ground forces are estimated at around 950,000, compared to 750,000 for the European NATO countries. This difference is “even more noticeable if political readiness and combat training are taken into account“, notes FIMO, bearing in mind the “political fragmentation“ of the continent. Europe is also “underequipped“ in terms of key support resources, primarily firepower - artillery, jet systems, strike drones and anti-aircraft missiles.
Europe's salvation may lie in the “qualitative superiority“ of its armies, “thanks to mastering the tactics of interaction between the branches of the armed forces and the qualification of personnel at all levels“. While ordinary Russian conscripts undergo only one to two months of basic training, NATO standards usually provide for six months of initial training, FIMO notes.
In the aerospace field, the study is categorical: Europe has a “clear superiority over Russia, both quantitatively and qualitatively“. The old continent has over 1,500 combat aircraft, compared to less than a thousand for Moscow. The difference is “even more impressive in terms of operational readiness and technological characteristics“. The French researchers point out that the Russian air force has not been able to gain superiority in the Ukrainian skies after three and a half years of war, “despite its undeniable material advantage“.
At the same time, Europe must quickly eliminate some weaknesses, in particular the problems with neutralizing enemy air defenses. Russia has built its entire military doctrine “around a scenario of a clash with a stronger (Western) adversary in airspace“, which explains “its great expertise in the field of ground-based air defense“.
At sea, Europe has “unquestionable qualitative superiority“ thanks to its approximately one hundred large surface ships - three times more than Russia's. The problem is that Russia is surrounded by several narrow seas (Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Barents Sea) - a geography that “makes it difficult to turn this superiority into a decisive advantage“, according to the authors of the study. Moscow's great strength is its submarines - “a serious threat“ against the background of “limited” Europe's anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
In conclusion, the FIMO study notes that “Europe is capable of defending itself - provided that investment continues and that political will is combined with the right organizational decisions“. The continent's strategic advantage is “the ability to combine technological and numerical superiority, as well as modern military doctrines“, the authors note. “But without coordination between member states and without a mechanism for rapid decision-making, this superiority is only potential.“
The concept of integrating national armed forces into a supranational European army is not new. It was first proposed in 1951 to counter the Soviet Union and ensure that Germany's rearmament would not threaten its neighbors, but was rejected by the French parliament in 1954. "The idea of European defense was part of the very origins of the EU. It is up to my generation to complete this undertaking," said Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Álvarez, stressing that today's geopolitical situation and the instability of transatlantic relations make the realization of this idea more necessary than ever.