Former American Secretary of State and National Security Advisor once quipped, “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?”. This problem endured for decades until the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, which established a quasi-federal hybrid regional organization with an identifiable executive branch. As such, the EU triumphantly claimed that it had finally solved the Kissinger question. The Russo-Ukrainian war has proved unequivocally that behind the veneer of unity of purpose, a glaring lack of unity of action and interests exists. The 3+ years of war in Ukraine have strategically weakened the EU and its member states in all dimensions of influence and power. With Donald J. Trump’s reelection, the EU needs to get its act together. Europe needs to finally put itself on the path to strategic autonomy or risk forever being in a position of dependence on the United States and/or China and irrelevance on the global stage.

European Policy Failures Since the Start of the Ukraine War

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Union has followed, if not surpassed, the United States in its sanctions policy towards the Russian Federation. The EU unveiled its 15^th sanctions package in December 2024. When one considers the totality of the EU sanctions since 2022, it becomes noticeable that there are less and less sanctions as there is less and less economic intercourse. Put simply, there isn’t much left to sanction.

Add to this the self-defeating energy sanctions, which have slowed economic growth; the continuation of economic policies that are harming EU businesses and economies; and American policies to ‘poach’ European industries. You have a policy environment that is going to cause long-term decline and economic stagnation, if not permanent damage.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has triumphantly proclaimed that the EU has reduced its dependency on Russian energy by some 75%, thereby signaling independence from Russian dependence. This is simply not reality. The EU no longer receives Russian pipeline gas after the closing and destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines by the Americans or associates. President Zelensky’s decision to stop the transit of gas in the Druzba pipeline on January 1, 2025, has left only Turkstream as the last conduit for Russian gas to enter Europe.

The near-ending of Russian pipeline gas has only increased Russian LNG shipments to the EU, with Russia supplying some 20%, up from 15% in 2022 to the European market. Additionally, the oil, which used to be shipped directly to Europe by pipeline and ship, is still making its way to Europe, only through India and other middlemen. India’s oil imports from Russia, prewar, were some 70,000 barrels per day. This skyrocketed to over 1.9 million barrels per day in September 2024. Much of this massive supply increase ends up in Europe, just at much higher costs than if the Europeans had bought the oil themselves. The EU and Europeans are still using Russian energy, just paying more for the same product, with EU leaders praising themselves for holding the sanctions line against Russia.

The EU and G7 price cap on Russian oil of September 2022 has failed miserably, as predicted, but instead of recognizing reality, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s VP and foreign policy chief, has instead proposed doubling down and lowering the cap.

The economic effects of EU sanctions have backfired spectacularly with inflation rampant across the Eurozone. Inflation in 2022-2023 hit all-time highs due to food and energy imports from Russia being sanctioned. Prices of goods and energy doubled or, in some cases, quadrupled as a result of the EU’s sanctions policy. This has caused government debt to rise substantially. EU GDP growth has nearly flattened, impacting real wages, with Europeans feeling the pinch as the cost of living continues to rise.

Europe’s largest economy, Germany, has been hit particularly hard. Prewar Germany imported 55% of its natural gas, as well as oil and coal from Russia, Germany’s largest supplier. This came to a halt with the Ukraine war as Germany took a strident position alongside the EU and Americans. So much so that not a mention was made when the Americans ‘allegedly’ blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines. This was evidenced by President Biden more or less announcing in 2022 that the US intended to destroy Nord Stream in a press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz standing next to President Biden.

Since the destruction of Nord Stream, Germany has plunged into recession, recording negative economic growth in 2 consecutive years since Nord Stream’s destruction. The massive rise in energy costs has hit German industry very hard. Major German industrial firms from Bosch to 3M and spanning industries from glass manufacturing and automobiles to chemicals and machine tools are closing, laying off workers, or moving out of Germany and Europe due to high costs of energy that have made German manufacturing unsustainable.

Added to this economic harm, America, Europe’s ‘ally,’ passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided massive subsidies to industries onshoring to the United States. The Inflation Reduction Act passed only a month after America ‘allegedly’ blew up Nord Stream. EU leaders have rightly noted that America’s Inflation Reduction Act does not reduce inflation but rather is set to poach European industries to leave the EU and set up shop in the United States. A generous interpretation would have these events as coincidence, while a more analytical approach would see the Americans taking the cheap road to reindustrialization. Destroy European business competitiveness and offer government subsidies to move to the US by blowing up the energy markets in Europe. Either way, European leaders (with the exception of Victor Orban) stridently embraced or acquiesced to the aforementioned.

The War in Ukraine: Security, Trump’s Reelection & the Right

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated a number of European vulnerabilities. During the first year of the war, European countries donated and transferred large amounts of weaponry to Ukraine in support of its fight against Russian aggression. The aid included large amounts of Soviet-era tanks, IFVs, artillery, and other assorted arms. However, after the first two years of war, Soviet-era stocks had run dry, and NATO weaponry was running low. A critical vulnerability was demonstrated in the lack of manufacturing capacity for 155mm artillery shells. European manufacturers had to wait up to 10 months to meet demand with costs ranging up to $5,000 per shell. The manufacturing shortfall is also backed up by manpower shortfalls. It was reported that the UK could last a maximum of 2 months in a high-intensity conflict, the likes of Ukraine. Germany fared no better, with analysts noting it would take the EU’s most populous country a decade or more to prepare for war. France demonstrated its lack of capacity by talking of sending troops in 2024, but these would amount to no more than 20,000 and play a behind-the-front-lines role. The UK has its smallest army since 1793, with a manpower of only 70,000, while its navy is in a deplorable state, unable to send its aircraft carrier to sea due to manpower shortage.

Needless to say, Europe and the European Union are not ready for combat. Yet, European leaders, including NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, have publicly stated that NATO must prepare for war, and Kaja Kallas warned that NATO and the EU need to prepare for WW3. This type of bellicose and delusional behavior has become the standard for the class of European leaders now in charge of security and foreign policy.

Meanwhile, since Donald Trump’s reelection, he has announced that the EU would face tariffs, the first hitting February 11 with 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. It is well known that President Trump prizes strength and takes advantage of weakness. This push was exemplified in his insistence that European NATO members no longer contribute 3% of GDP but 5%. Further, Trump has stated his policy preference for ending the Ukraine war and handing the Ukraine mess to the Europeans. This is best seen in the upcoming Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will not be chairing. The US has handed off funding responsibilities to UK Defense Secretary John Healey. Secretary Hegseth laid out the American approach on Wednesday. They included an affirmation of Russia’s military gains by stating that a return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders was unrealistic. Further, he hammered the point home that any security guarantees would be provided by Europeans, not America. The Ukrainian proxy is in the most precarious position of its history as there will no new aid packages coming from the Trump administration.

With EU economies suffering high inflation and near-zero GDP growth, it is unclear how European NATO members and other EU countries would manage to increase spending without massive social expenditure cuts. Most sizable EU members are heavily indebted, with debt to GDP already exceeding or close to exceeding stable limits of public debt leaving little space for increased military spending.

Since the war broke out, many European countries have seen their political systems become more destabilized. Austria has seen a massive increase in support for the Freedom Party, France is nearly ungovernable after another government collapse, the UK has cycled through prime ministers almost as fast as Bulgaria, which is headed to its 8th election in 4 years, Romania is in chaos after the Constitutional Court nullified the 1^st round of presidential elections on false claims of Russian interference via TikTok, and Germany’s government collapsed and is now seeing a massive jump in support from the AfD. If further social spending is cut to support Ukraine, more political upheaval is likely.

The Ukraine war has more or less shattered the centrist political consensus, under pressure for many years in Europe. The collapse in voter support for left and center parties in major and minor EU countries is a symptom of a larger problem. Not listening to, taking care of, and ruling in the interests of voters. This point was laid starkly bare by former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who, in 2022, in an interview with Bloomberg, stated that she would continue supporting Ukraine even if it was against the wishes of her voters. Is it such a surprise that voters are revolting?

Putting European Interests First

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in a recent interview that under the Trump administration, America would be following a time-honored foreign policy of putting its interests before all others. European leaders would heed well these simple but true words. The EU risks being stuck between an angry and untrusting Russia, an annoyed China, right wing populist, and a ruthless America, which is going to continue poaching EU industries and dump the failed state of Ukraine on Europe’s doorstep.

Recently, Denmark has given the green light to preserving the one damaged but operational Nord Stream pipeline. This is, no doubt, at the behest of the Germans, who still cannot bring themselves to act in their national interest. This is a logical and helpful first step in repairing ruptured relations. By geographic proximity, the EU’s natural trade partner for energy and natural resources will always be Russia, and given that Russia has diversified its economy, it is in the interests of Europeans to recognize this and begin acting prudently.

Prior to taking on a stronger foreign policy brief with the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU was considered a ‘civilian power’ exercising economic, soft and diplomatic power that enhanced and supported it member states. The EU’s foreign policy missteps in Syria, Mid East and Ukraine have highlighted the overreach that the hybrid regional organization has engaged. Concerning serious security issues there will be divergent positions of core national interests between East and West European nations. This fissure is has become apparent is widening. The return of the EU Commission and EU to its economic and trade roles is needed while keep foreign and security policy with the EUI Council. The inability to act in unity with credible military force coupled with a disastrous American foreign policy has led the EU into a cul-de-sac of dependence and vulnerability which the American’s are getting ready to take further advantage. 

The EU has searched for strategic autonomy since 1998, when Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac began the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. The EU’s 2013-2023 plan for strategic autonomy has failed miserably. The Ukraine war has made Europe less secure, less autonomous, and more dependent on America than at any time since the end of WWII.

Major EU countries like Germany and France need to put the Commission and its ideologically informed leadership, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, in the backseat of policymaking and begin shaping policy to benefit Europeans first. This needs to happen quickly before more European competitiveness is lost and Europe becomes more destabilized. Putting European economic interests first is essential to restore prosperity and confidence. The EU still sizable diplomatic and soft power influence needs to be accentuated while putting in the backseat security and military policy. A good starting point would be to open negotiations with Russia, independent of the American’s and begin rolling back minor sanctions to restore some trust.

Whether Europeans will get their acts together and begin to put EU interests first is not likely with the current coterie of leaders. If it does not happen quickly, Europe risks being wholly dependent on America, which is pivoting away from Europe and relegated to a second-rate economic actor of irrelevance to international politics.

William J. Jones is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Mahidol University International College, Thailand. His research publications focus is International Relations of Asia-Pacific, Geopolitics, Human Rights, Comparative Regionalism and Contemporary Thai Politics. His commentary has been published on BBC News, TVP Global, The Diplomat, Geopolitical Monitor, East Asia Forum, The Geopolitics and other outlets.