The U.S. strategic interests in Ukraine and China diverge due to differing geopolitical, economic, and military calculations.
China, on the other hand, represents a more complex and far-reaching challenge. Unlike Russia, which is primarily seen as a military and regional threat, China poses a systemic challenge to U.S. global dominance. Its rapid economic growth, technological advancements, surpassing the U.S. in many crucial areas, and expanding influence through initiatives like the Belt and Road are perceived as a direct threat to American hegemony in both the economic and geopolitical spheres. Washington views containing China—whether through military build-up in the Indo-Pacific, economic decoupling, or the support of Taiwan—as essential to maintaining its leadership in the global order.
The Role of Europe in U.S. Strategic Interests
Europe plays a supporting role in these strategic interests but finds itself increasingly caught between aligning with U.S. objectives and addressing its own pressing economic and political challenges. The U.S. is not giving Europe the necessary support to overcome its economic and competitiveness challenges. On the contrary, as pointed out recently by French President Emmanuel Macron, the U.S. behaves as a competitor: “They are not our allies but competitors.”
In Ukraine, Europe has been a critical partner, providing funding, arms, and political backing for the conflict. However, this cooperation has come at a significant cost to European economies, and it was a major cause of the recent German government breakdown, which is grappling with fiscal, and energy crises and troubling low levels of investments fueled by the war and sanctions against Russia.
Europe’s continued alignment with U.S.-Biden-led objectives in Ukraine is less about shared strategic goals and more about its reliance on NATO and U.S. security guarantees.
When it comes to China, Europe’s role is less clear-cut. Many European nations have deep economic ties with Beijing, making them reluctant to fully align with U.S. containment strategies. The U.S. push for Europe to decouple from China or join efforts to militarize the Indo-Pacific puts further strain on transatlantic relations. This divergence underscores how U.S. strategic interests are often at odds with Europe’s priorities, highlighting the growing friction within the so-called Western alliance.
Ultimately, these contrasting approaches underscore the transactional and opportunistic nature of U.S. foreign policy under Trump—or any administration—where alliances and strategies are dictated by shifting calculations of power, often at the expense of long-term partnerships.
In conclusion
In Ukraine, the proxy war with Russia has reached its practical limits. Even the majority of Ukrainians – 56 per cent – favour a negotiated end to the conflict, and only 20% want the continuation of fights. Trump’s pivot away from military aid may reflect a pragmatic acknowledgement of diminishing returns. It means that continued military and financial aid may no longer lead to meaningful progress or strategic gains. Instead, the benefits of these efforts are declining while the costs remain high or even increase.
With Russia entrenched and US resources strained, Ukraine is increasingly sidelined as Washington looks to China. However, by allowing Zelensky to fire American mid-range missiles deep into Russia, Biden is doing everything possible to leave Trump a cursed inheritance.
China, on the other hand, faces escalating hostility. Trump’s administration is expected to deepen the US military presence in the Indo-Pacific, build alliances with regional players like the Philippines, and intensify support for Taiwan’s militarization. This approach could lead to heightened tensions and potentially open conflict, with far-reaching consequences for global stability.
This bifurcation underscores a broader reality: U.S. foreign policy is driven less by ideology and more by managing its imperial priorities—a logic that Europeans often struggle to grasp, as they tend to regard the U.S. as a friend. The proxy war in Ukraine has served to bring Europe under U.S. influence but is now seen as expendable; China is the next target in a prolonged strategy of American hegemony. The pressure on Europe to support the “Asia-NATO” project is a clear attempt to bring Europe to support the U.S. to encircle China. Once again, this is not Europe’s agenda, but America’s pursuit of maintaining global dominance.
For the rest of the world, BRICS arises as a viable alternative, as it underscores the urgent need to resist through multipolarity and self-reliance. In the long run, BRICS might also be an interesting alternative for Europe.
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics.
