The fate of Europe without its big brother

President Donald Trump has little sympathy for the leaders of the European Union, or for Europe itself. He has called EU leaders "weak people" who have failed to manage migration or the war in Ukraine.

In his opinion, "Europe doesn't know what to do," and migration from third world countries has changed European cities beyond recognition.

The rift between the EU and the US became even more pronounced at the end of the year when the State Department, led by Marco Rubio, imposed sanctions on five European citizens for "suppressing freedom of expression." Among them was former French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, on the grounds that they were "radical activists" working against the interests of the United States. At the heart of the problem is the European DSA directive, which restricts American technology companies such as Meta and X in matters of so-called hate speech, i.e., hateful expressions on the internet.

In addition, Vice President James David Vance, in his speech at the Munich Security Conference, demonstrated a fundamental shift in Americans' perception of their European allies. He pointed to the cancellation of elections in Romania by European officials and the general loss of values on the old continent.

The US government's strong criticism also concerns the uncontrolled approach to the war in Ukraine, where, despite numerous sanctions and huge subsidies and loans to the attacked country, there has been no significant shift towards defeating Russia. On the contrary, the Russian Federation currently has the upper hand on the battlefield, as even the most ardent opponents of the Russian regime admit.

Considering withdrawal from NATO

Many issues related to NATO's activities are also problematic for Trump. These range from the less likely, such as attempts to expel Spain from the defense pact, to strategic threats, such as US efforts to withdraw from the defense alliance.

From Donald Trump's point of view, the significant funding of this organization by the United States is problematic, and he is demanding an increase in the minimum defense contributions from European countries to the currently problematic level (from the original two percent to five percent of a country's GDP), which the countries ultimately agreed to.

Equally important is the fact that America is shifting its attention away from European security towards rivalry (and possible military conflict) with China and South America.

The loudest and most open call for the US to leave NATO came from Donald Trump's former close political ally, Elon Musk. Although Alliance representatives do not realistically expect the United States to leave, this possibility is so realistic in America that Congress has passed a law under which the US president cannot withdraw from NATO without the consent of a two-thirds majority in Congress.

Good and bad news for Europe

The gradual financial and military withdrawal of the Americans from Europe could, in principle, be both good and bad news for the European Union.

The bad news would be the immediate loss of its strongest military partner and financial donor. Although Europe has considerable military strength and technology at its disposal, the US is undoubtedly at the top of the list of countries with the strongest armies in the world (or at least in the top three), currently having an estimated 70,000 to 90,000 troops in Europe, according to estimates.

In addition to the loss of manpower, Europe would also lose a significant part of its military technology in the form of ships, aircraft, various types of missiles, and other defense systems. The Slovak Republic already has experience with this scenario after the US withdrew its Patriot anti-aircraft system from our territory in 2023, leaving the country without air defense as a result of Jaroslav Naď's donation of equipment to Ukraine.

Europe would remain significantly weakened militarily, which even the massive efforts of member states to arm their armies and spend more and more money on military expenditure and defense would not be able to save at that moment. A separate chapter in the issue of protection and deterrence is the "nuclear umbrella" over Europe, which is held by the US, although France and its allies are already trying to create an alternative in this regard.

Although scenarios of an attack by the Russian Federation on the Union are currently completely unrealistic, with the departure of its strongest ally and a divided Europe, it is possible to say that weak European prey would be a tempting morsel.

At least in terms of testing how far a potential aggressor could go before its provocations turned into a major military conflict. It should not be forgotten that the most effective defense is always a demonstration of strength, and Europe would lack that.

The problem with self-financing

A huge problem would also arise in terms of defense and security financing. NATO statistics alone show that all countries together spend less than half of what America alone spends on defense. The loss of such massive funding would pose a huge problem for Europe in maintaining a minimum level of armament and defense.

Huge loans in the tens of billions to Ukraine (most recently approved at €90 billion) are putting Europe into extreme debt, forcing it to tax its population more and more. With already absurdly strict regulations and fees, this would mean an increasing loss of momentum for the European economy and, consequently, negative forecasts for adequate financing of the military industry and defense.

Donald Trump was not far from the truth when he said that European leaders are weak. Their inability to actively address the most fundamental problems of the union or to effectively push for an end to the war in Ukraine (the 19th package of sanctions with no real impact is truly laughable) suggests that they will not be able to cope with the departure of the US and that there will be a drastic reduction in the economic and military effectiveness of the Union.

The icing on the cake of this weakness and incompetence of leaders are scandals such as the investigation of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for her alleged influence on the purchase of vaccines worth hundreds of billions of euros via text messages, which she subsequently refused to disclose. Another prime example of hypocrisy is the investigation of former Commissioner Didier Reynders, who liked to preach about the rule of law, only to be accused of money laundering himself.

The best-case scenario in such a dire prognosis is internal political destabilization of member states and massive increases in taxes and levies. The worst-case scenario would be the gradual fragmentation of Europe and an attack from beyond its borders. This would be the most opportune moment to strike.

Time for the European spirit to rise up

However, the departure of the US from NATO or other European structures could, on the contrary, also be good news for the old continent.

Of course, this would not be possible without initial material losses and difficulties, but Europe would suddenly find itself in the harsh reality of where the bureaucratic elites have led it with their nonsensical policies based on an ideological view of the world. The NATO treaty states that a formal one-year notice period must be observed when a member leaves. During this period, the departing member must fulfill its obligations.

Europe would thus have at least a year to adapt to the new situation. The relatively short notice period means that there would be no room for missteps.

The objective loss of a large part of its defense funding would be a wake-up call amid ongoing conflict on its eastern border. In an optimistic spirit, we can assume that European leaders would abandon nonsense such as the complete electrification of vehicles, emission allowances, or exclusively green energy for states, and that a focus on the military-industrial complex would mean a gradual revival and growth of the economies of member states.

History knows many examples of victories

European history is full of examples of the continent rising from the brink of destruction and reversing the course of history at the last minute in favor of European values. The fighting spirit and prudence of the leaders of the time, now historical figures and heroes, managed to turn slim chances of success into great victories, despite the bleak scenarios (the invasion of the Mongols, the Ottoman Empire, Napoleon's campaign, and World War II).

Gradual rearmament would mean increased spending, but this could be financed by money transferred from ineffective ideological policies, which are gradually causing the Union to lose its position as a serious global player and become merely a market for other countries' trade.

Effective management of financial flows and armament at the EU level would not only cover the shortfall in financial flows from the US, but also reduce Europe's own dependence in this regard. A modernized EU defense would command the same respect on the world stage as the US or Chinese armies do today. A European study has already been carried out in this regard, mapping the costs of such an approach, which means that this is not an unrealistic scenario.

It is precisely the threat of acute collapse, whether in terms of finance or defense, that would mean that the Union would be forced to take drastic measures initially, but which would restore its economic performance based on military production and the sale of these products and technologies in the medium to long term.

Europe would also become a player in the field of global security, which would naturally increase its credibility and prestige. European leaders would no longer be in the position of eternally babbling bureaucrats who are unable to achieve anything on a global scale, but all world powers would have to reckon with Europe's military power. The European study even contemplates the possibility of deterring Russian aggression without the presence of the US.

The ideal scenario would be for the people to replace the political leadership responsible for the current state of the union in the upcoming elections, which in itself would be excellent news for the future of Europe.

The departure of the US from European economic and defense structures could either break the entire Union or strengthen it significantly. Everything would depend on how real leaders would respond to this, or how the people themselves would deal with their incompetence in the elections.

Weekly