Europe has long relied on the United States for its security, a partnership that has been foundational to the continent’s post-World War II stability. From the establishment of NATO in 1949 to U.S. leadership in the Cold War, Europe’s security infrastructure has been largely shaped by American military, economic, and diplomatic power. However, recent geopolitical shifts, economic pressures, and evolving security challenges are prompting a reevaluation of this transatlantic security arrangement. As Europe faces rising threats from both state and non-state actors, many are asking: How much longer can Europe rely on the U.S. for its security?
This article explores the changing dynamics of transatlantic security, examining the key factors influencing Europe’s reliance on the U.S., the pressures on the U.S. commitment to European security, and the potential for Europe to bolster its own defense capabilities.
1. A Legacy of American Security Support
The roots of Europe’s reliance on U.S. security support stretch back to the aftermath of World War II. After the devastation of the war, European countries were left in disarray, both economically and militarily. The United States, as the world’s emerging superpower, stepped in to fill the vacuum. The formation of NATO in 1949 cemented a security arrangement underpinned by American military strength. The U.S. provided a nuclear umbrella, conventional forces, and the political leadership necessary to deter Soviet aggression during the Cold War.
The U.S. military presence in Europe was not just symbolic; it was practical. Throughout the Cold War, U.S. bases in Germany, Italy, the UK, and other countries formed the backbone of NATO’s defense posture. The American security guarantee gave European nations the confidence to focus on economic reconstruction and integration, ultimately leading to the creation of the European Union (EU). Europe, under the protection of U.S. forces, was able to prioritize cooperation rather than conflict, which helped foster decades of peace and prosperity.
2. The Changing Geopolitical Landscape
In the decades following the end of the Cold War, Europe’s security situation seemed to stabilize. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent expansion of NATO seemed to signal that Europe had entered a period of relative security, at least in terms of conventional military threats. However, the return of a more assertive Russia, instability in the Middle East, and the rise of new global threats have introduced complexities that could challenge the U.S.-Europe security arrangement.
Russia, once a partner in European security through arms control agreements like the INF Treaty, has in recent years become a more aggressive actor. The 2008 invasion of Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and continued military operations in Eastern Ukraine have shown that Russia is willing to use military force to exert its influence over Europe’s periphery. This shift has revived NATO’s role in deterring Russian expansionism but has also put a strain on the alliance. The U.S. is expected to lead in confronting Russia, but European countries, especially those in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, are increasingly concerned about whether the U.S. will maintain its commitment to collective defense in the face of Russia’s rising military capabilities.
Beyond Russia, Europe also faces threats from non-state actors. Terrorism, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns have become new frontiers in the security landscape. These challenges, which require both conventional military responses and sophisticated intelligence operations, place new demands on European countries to adapt and build capabilities. While the U.S. remains a key partner in countering these threats, Europe’s reliance on American leadership in this domain may become less sustainable in the future.
3. The U.S. “America First” Doctrine and Its Implications for Europe
In recent years, the U.S.’s commitment to European security has been called into question by political shifts at home. The “America First” doctrine under President Donald Trump and the subsequent foreign policy changes have raised doubts about the reliability of the U.S. as a long-term security partner. Trump’s criticisms of NATO, demands for increased defense spending from European members, and his withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change were seen as signs of an America that was less willing to shoulder the burden of global leadership.
Although the Biden administration has sought to restore transatlantic relations and reassert America’s commitment to NATO and European security, there are signs that the U.S. may be moving towards a more transactional approach to international relations. This shift is driven by growing domestic challenges, including political polarization, economic concerns, and an increasing focus on Asia, particularly China. For Europe, this creates uncertainty about the future of the U.S. security guarantee.
Additionally, America’s political polarization and internal divisions over foreign policy mean that future administrations could adopt radically different approaches to Europe. If a future U.S. president were to return to a more isolationist or unilateral foreign policy, Europe might find itself facing security challenges without the robust support of the United States that it has come to expect.
4. The Case for European Strategic Autonomy
Given these uncertainties, there is increasing debate within Europe about the need for greater strategic autonomy. The concept of European strategic autonomy is not new but has gained traction in recent years as Europe’s security environment becomes more unpredictable. Strategic autonomy would involve Europe taking more responsibility for its own defense and security, reducing its dependence on the U.S. while maintaining strong ties with Washington.
The idea of strategic autonomy has been championed by EU leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron, who has called for a “European Army” and a more independent defense policy. Macron’s vision is based on the idea that Europe should be able to act independently when necessary, especially in situations where American interests may not align with European ones. Strategic autonomy also implies greater coordination among European defense institutions, such as the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), to ensure a more coherent and unified approach to security.
In practice, achieving strategic autonomy would require substantial investment in defense capabilities. Europe currently spends significantly less on defense than the U.S. or China, with NATO members committing to a target of 2% of GDP on defense, a goal that many European countries still struggle to meet. Greater investment in defense technologies, intelligence-sharing, and cyber capabilities would be essential to make European defense forces more capable and autonomous.
However, there are significant challenges to this vision. Many European countries remain wary of alienating the U.S. or undermining NATO, which they view as the cornerstone of their security. Moreover, the political will to create a truly unified European defense structure is still lacking, and differences between member states on defense priorities make it difficult to forge a coherent strategy.
5. The Future of NATO and Transatlantic Security
Despite these challenges, NATO remains the most important collective security organization for Europe. The alliance has proven resilient in the face of numerous challenges, from the Cold War to the War on Terror, and continues to evolve in response to new threats. In recent years, NATO has adapted its focus to include cyber defense, counterterrorism, and hybrid warfare tactics, all of which are critical to addressing modern security threats.
One potential future for NATO is a strengthened partnership between the U.S. and Europe that maintains the transatlantic security link while allowing Europe to take a more active role in its own defense. This would require a more balanced burden-sharing arrangement, where European countries contribute more to NATO’s defense initiatives while the U.S. remains a key partner in areas where American capabilities are essential, such as nuclear deterrence and advanced military technologies.
Another possibility is the emergence of new regional security arrangements in Europe. For example, countries in Northern Europe, such as the Nordic states, have shown increasing interest in closer defense cooperation, including joint military exercises and the sharing of intelligence. Similarly, the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) could evolve into a more robust framework for European defense cooperation, particularly in areas such as crisis management and peacekeeping.
However, the future of NATO and European security will depend on the ability of European countries to balance the need for greater autonomy with the reality of global geopolitics. While Europe cannot afford to entirely sever its ties with the U.S., it may need to explore new avenues for strengthening its own defense capabilities and ensuring its security in a rapidly changing world.
6. Conclusion: A New Era of European Security?
Europe’s reliance on the U.S. for security has been a defining feature of the post-World War II order. However, as the global geopolitical landscape evolves, Europe must adapt to the changing realities of international security. The question of how much longer Europe can rely on the U.S. for its security is not easily answered, as it involves complex factors ranging from political shifts in the U.S. to the growing importance of new threats such as cyberattacks and terrorism.
In the coming years, Europe will likely have to take a more active role in securing its own future. While NATO and the transatlantic partnership will remain crucial, Europe’s ability to invest in defense capabilities, build stronger regional security mechanisms, and assert its strategic autonomy will determine the future of European security. The goal will not be to replace the U.S. but to create a more balanced and resilient security framework that can respond to the challenges of the 21st century.
