The Western World Is Dead, but Europe Doesn’t Know It

Not only is Donald Trump’s return to the White House a significant shift in US foreign policy, but it is also causing a structural strategic revolution, a change in the world order. One which is leading to a global re-evaluation of the order that emerged from the Second World War.

Obituary for the “Western world”

The Western world as known since the end of World War II no longer exists. In 1946, Winston Churchill publicly denounced the establishment of an Iron Curtain that divided Europe in two. In 1947, Harry S. Truman declared that the United States would take the lead in the free world. In 1949, the Atlantic Alliance was created, the first alliance signed by the United States in peacetime, and the following year it was given a permanent and integrated civil and military structure: NATO. All of this was torn apart by Donald Trump in a matter of days. Among other pleasantries, he declared from the White House on February 26, 2025: “Let’s be honest, the European Union was formed to screw the United States.” Vice President Vance addressed Europeans in Munich at the Security Conference a few days earlier, on February 14: “America can do nothing for you, and there is nothing you can do for the American people.”

The United States, whose power had been boosted during World War II, provided protection for Western European countries against the Soviet threat. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provided for mutual commitment by member states in the event of military aggression against any of them “in Europe or North America.” This was a guarantee that the United States would intervene in Europe to prevent the USSR from moving forward. In exchange for this protection (which is never free), the United States enjoyed strong and global influence over European countries.

Under De Gaulle, France, a member of the UN Security Council, decided to take control of its own security and thus pursue an independent diplomatic policy. Possession of nuclear weapons enabled it to leave NATO’s integrated military structures. The other countries found the price of dependence acceptable, to such an extent that they wanted to maintain it even after the Soviet threat has disappeared.

Russia was subsequently treated as the defeated party of the Cold War, rather than as a partner in the possible construction of a new world order. The United States constantly thwarted efforts by Berlin, Paris, and a few other European countries to develop any strong relationship with Moscow. They were aided in this by ultra-Atlanticist European nations (the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.) and by the new Baltic and Polish members, whose history has left them with a powerful degree of hostility toward Moscow.

Trust in the credibility of the American guarantee had been shaken by Donald Trump’s first term in office—Emmanuel Macron spoke of the “brain death of NATO” in November 2019—and then by the debacle in Kabul in August 2021, when the United States left Afghanistan in a context of hurry and disorder.

War in Ukraine: The rise and fall of NATO

But the war launched by Russia against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, would prove to be a rejuvenating event for NATO.

All European countries believed that only Washington’s protection could shield them from the Russian military threat, implored Washington to strengthen its military presence in Europe, and drastically increased their military budgets, which translated into greater purchases of military equipment from the United States. Sixty-three percent of European countries’ military equipment purchases outside their national markets were made from the United States (over the period 2022-May 2023)[1].

Sweden and Finland ended their neutrality to join NATO. The French project for strategic autonomy for Europe seemed so offset that Emmanuel Macron toned it down to blend in with Euro-Atlantic orthodoxy. The speech he gave on May 31, 2023, at the Globsec Summit on security in Bratislava, Slovakia, confirmed this change of course. Wanting to curry favour with the countries of the eastern European Union, he went so far as to question Jacques Chirac’s criticism of them, even though they were in favour of the war in Iraq. Emmanuel Macron declared: “We have not always listened enough to the voice you raised, calling for recognition of your history and your painful memories. Some people told you at the time that you were missing opportunities to remain silent.”[2] Jacques Chirac had indeed declared that they had “missed an opportunity to remain silent.”[3].

The European countries that had impeded attempts to build closer ties with Moscow since 2004 were recognized as whistleblowers, with Paris and Berlin making amends for their previous contacts with Russia.

When he arrived at the White House in January 2021, Joe Biden appeared protective, benevolent, and welcome after Donald Trump’s crude methods. His Inflation Reduction Act program, although perceived as devastating for European industry, which was encouraged to relocate to the United States, provoked only ineffective protests from both German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron. This was the price to pay for strategic protection. But the war in Ukraine, which allowed NATO to proclaim itself “the strongest Alliance ever”[4], also signed its death sentence, at least as it had existed since its creation.

Donald Trump, already reluctant to be bound by the Alliance’s game in peacetime during his first term, no longer wanted to be bound by it in wartime, in line with his campaign promises.

NATO will continue to exist, but as a dead star. No one can be certain anymore that the United States would come to the aid of Europeans in case of need. The heart of the organization has stopped beating.

Europe’s denial of reality

The United States is no longer the protector of Europeans; it could become their predator. Donald Trump considers the European Union to be an enemy that was created to “screw over” the United States. He is directly threatening to undermine the territorial integrity of two founding members: Canada and Denmark, whose Greenland he covets and where he is engaging in a campaign to influence the inhabitants, which constitutes clear interference.

In his view, alliances are a source of burdensome and unnecessary obligations, whereas bilateral agreements, negotiated on a case-by-case basis, are much more advantageous for the United States, which can more easily impose its power.

Having pledged to solve the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, he is pressuring Volodymyr Zelensky so that the latter, deprived of all American support, has no other option but to accept an agreement concluded over his head – and that of the Europeans – between Moscow and Washington. European allies are not being consulted on the next steps.

While Europeans, following a line agreed upon with Washington, consider Vladimir Putin, against whom an arrest warrant has been issued by the ICC, to be unfit for association, Donald Trump receives him with great pomp and applause in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025, taking the opposite stance to all the other NATO member capitals. He does so without consultation, pursuing a purely national agenda.

Donald Trump’s position on Ukraine is a mixture of realism and casualness. The fundamental mistake made by Europeans in this affair is that they have never set their own war objectives.

Western countries, wholeheartedly embracing Volodymyr Zelensky’s war aims – to recover all territories lost since the start of the war, including Crimea; to make Russia pay for war damages; and to bring Vladimir Putin to trial before the ICC – were following a logic that was morally and legally consistent but, unfortunately, completely unrealistic. Furthermore, the attitude of Western countries toward the war in Gaza undermined the credibility of their visceral commitment to international law and humanitarian law.

With a population reduced to 30 million, compared to Russia’s 145 million, it was impossible for Ukraine to turn the tide of war, unless its Western supporters sent massive numbers of troops to fight alongside it to compensate for the demographic deficit. But that would have meant the start of a third world war.

On this matter, Donald Trump is merely acknowledging a reality that Europeans and the Biden administration continued to ignore. However, by suddenly and abruptly dismissing Volodymyr Zelensky, and refusing to exert pressure on Moscow, he provided Vladimir Putin with fewer incentives to pursue a negotiated peace.

While Donald Trump clearly signaled to Europeans that he was letting them go, that for him the Atlantic Alliance was a dead star, the latter, instead of taking note and moving on, did everything they could to try to rekindle the flame. While German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that Germany must become independent from the United States[5], and the French president brought the concept of European strategic autonomy back into the public arena, irenicism very quickly prevailed over realism. Like desperate rejected lovers, the Europeans did everything they could to win back Donald Trump’s heart, even if it meant making far-reaching concessions. Their fear of Russia leads them to believe that there is no other option but to be protected by Washington. However, they could consider that, bogged down in Ukraine, Russia is not ready to attack the European Union and that they have time to try to build autonomy rather than prolonging and even worsening their dependence. This is the choice that was made under pressure from the German chancellor and the Italian prime minister, spurred on outside the European Union by the British prime minister, under the leadership of Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen. The woman who, in other times, had advocated for a geopolitical Commission will be the embodiment of submission.

This took place in several stages. At the NATO summit in June 2025, European countries, despite their skepticism, agreed to increase their military spending to 5% of GDP for the sole purpose of pleasing Donald Trump. Only Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez had the courage to publicly oppose this and point out the futility and inanity of the measure. This came at the very moment when Donald Trump was reaffirming that there were several ways of interpreting Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. European countries were delighted that the US president had agreed to attend the summit. They had even shortened the summit to ensure that he would do so. We are satisfied with little. But the scale of the concessions was about to increase. The President of the Commission agreed to visit the US President’s private golf course outside the European Union in Scotland. Can we imagine the US President traveling to the vacation resort of the President of the Commission? At least she didn’t wait three days with her feet in the snow like the German Emperor Henry IV at Canossa. She came to negotiate a particularly unbalanced trade agreement, as it involved a 15% tax on European products, while products exported by the United States were, on the other hand, exempted. Once again, European leaders were satisfied with an unbalanced situation because it could have been worse. In July, however, the same president of the Commission had taken a hard line with Beijing at a European Union-China summit on the war in Ukraine, trade issues, and Taiwan.

Finally, fearing that the United States would abandon Ukraine altogether, European leaders went to Washington to discuss the matter, accompanied Volodymyr Zelensky, and gratefully agreed to pay $90 billion themselves for American arms supplies to Ukraine. Donald Trump killed two birds with one stone: he satisfied his electorate by showing that there was no more wasteful spending on Ukraine, and he had the Europeans pay the bill by feeding his military-industrial complex. To top it all off, we learned that he was asking nothing less than for Europe to dismantle its regulations and oversight of American digital giants.

In fact, never before had a US president been so demanding of Europeans, even at the height of the Cold War. And never before had Europeans been so willing to submit to such demands. At that time, Europeans were facing an existential military threat from the Soviet Union and benefited from the protection of the United States, which exercised benevolent leadership over them. They now face a very real military threat, albeit less significant than during the Soviet era, with the United States offering no guarantees of protection but wanting them to align themselves with it. If Europe gives in on the digital issue, it will be possible to say that Trump has successfully taken up the concept of “limited sovereignty” developed by Brezhnev in 1968, making European states the equivalent of Moscow’s satellite states during the Cold War.

Believing that making concessions to Donald Trump could appease him is a strategic mistake. He may conclude that the European Union is in a position of weakness and that he can therefore demand more. Donald Trump does not distinguish between different types of regimes, as his predecessors officially did. His dividing line is between the weak and the powerful, and he sees Europeans as weak. What’s more, this is also the message that the European Union is sending to the rest of the world.

Can we still talk about Western values?

Donald Trump is not content with merely questioning the strength of the Atlantic bloc. He wants to challenge the entire world order, and this has repercussions for the concept of the “Western family.” For him, international law is an illegitimate constraint that hinders the free exercise of American power. He wants to challenge the slow and difficult construction of a world governed by law – admittedly still very imperfect, but nevertheless preferable to the world before World War II, where only the balance of power mattered. The UN, international organizations, multilateralism, international law, and everything that was the creed of Westerners (even if they did not fully respect them in practice) no longer matter. Donald Trump no longer wants to be accountable.

Faced with this American abandonment, Europeans could have chosen to wean themselves off their dependence and build for the long term. They seem unwilling to do so: dependence has created too strong a habitus. But above all, they could have distinguished themselves from Donald Trump in terms of values: his constant questioning of international law, his relentless attacks on the United Nations and the multilateral system, his hatred of international organizations, his brutal behavior, his crude language, his open contempt for all other civilizations and nations, his unlimited confidence in hard power, and his rejection of soft power are diametrically opposed to the principles espoused by the European Union. The EU could have capitalized on this, particularly regarding the countries of the so-called “Global South,” by distancing itself from the United States. The problem is that in doing so, it only highlighted its own contradictions, particularly regarding the current situation in Gaza and its attitude toward Israel. Although it initially affirmed its unconditional support (how can one, under any circumstances, show unconditional support, except to pave the way for the worst?), it began to issue mild protests after several months of bombings targeting civilians in particular, even going so far as to issue verbal condemnations thereafter, without ever resorting to sanctions, thus demonstrating its powerlessness, which can only be understood as complicity. This calls into question both its strategic and moral credibility.

The missed opportunity to engage with the South

At a time when Southern countries are becoming increasingly influential on the international scene, Western countries have widened the gap between them. Their insistence that these countries impose the same sanctions against Russia has been particularly irritating. Southern states do not find any value in getting involved in a European war, given that Western countries have never been sanctioned for the wars they have waged — and the very term “sanctions” reminds them of the colonial era.

The moral arguments used by Western countries to support their call for sanctions were met with scepticism, reinforced by their inaction on the Palestinian issue prior to October 7, 2023, which was followed by anger. If acquiring territory by force and bombing civilians is indeed unacceptable, why impose sanctions in one case… and deliver weapons in another?

France, which could have conveyed a message of rapprochement with the South, reoriented its diplomacy by placing even greater emphasis on European and Western coherence, reducing its Gaullist-Mitterrandist stance, a phenomenon that began under Sarkozy and was reinforced under Hollande.

President Macron believes that the new circumstances require closer ties with Northern European countries, Poland, and the Baltic states in order to avoid isolation. But does this come at the cost of diluting France’s positions? Who has made the biggest move toward the other?

Above all, France has lost a great deal of credibility and prestige among Southern countries. It seems to be aligning itself more closely with Western powers. On the Middle East, it appears shyer than in the past, with its recognition of Palestine appearing welcome but belated. Spain now seems to embody the role of balancing power with Southern countries, but without France’s historical significance and diplomatic and strategic capabilities. France’s failure to condemn Israel’s war against Iran in June 2025 reinforced the idea that France had chosen the Western civilizational alliance over strict compliance with international law.

At a time when China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and many others are resisting American imperialism, European countries, obsessed with fear of Russia, are giving in to it. American influence is largely declining in the Global South and is growing in Europe. The European Union is suffering from strategic sleepwalking. The awakening is likely to be brutal.

---

[1] Jean-Pierre Maulny, “The Impact of the War in Ukraine on the European Defence Market”, Policy Paper, IRIS (September 2023).

[2] Élysée, “Closing speech by the President of the French Republic”, 31 May 2023.

[3] “Jacques Chirac critique la position pro-américaine des futurs membres de l’UE”, Le Monde, 18 February 2003.

[4] NATO, Washington Summit Declaration, (10 July 2024).

[5] Comments made on the German television channel ARD on 23 February 2025.