As Washington openly redefines Europe as a subordinate rather than a partner, Brussels persists in the language of alliance. This growing mismatch between American strategy and European self-perception is turning the transatlantic relationship into a dangerous illusion.
The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) crystallizes this shift. Europe is no longer treated as a co-architect of the international order, but as a space to be disciplined, reformed, or bypassed. The European Union’s refusal to acknowledge this reality has produced a deeply schizophrenic relationship: Europe continues to speak the language of alliance, while the United States increasingly practices a politics of hierarchy, conditionality, and interference.
In the following sections, drawing on Biscop’s argument, I argue that the transatlantic alliance, as historically understood, has effectively ended. What remains is an asymmetric and unstable relationship in which Europe behaves as a dependent actor, while Washington no longer conceives of Europe as an ally but as a subordinate whose autonomy is undesirable. The persistence of European denial of this reality not only weakens the EU’s strategic position but also accelerates its geopolitical marginalization.
The End of the Alliance: From Rhetoric to Doctrine
Donald Trump’s hostility towards Europe is not new. During his first presidency, he repeatedly described the European Union as an economic adversary and accused European states of free-riding on American security guarantees.
What distinguishes the current moment is that this hostility has moved from rhetoric to doctrine. The 2025 National Security Strategy represents a qualitative break with post-war transatlantic orthodoxy. Europe is no longer framed as a pillar of American global leadership but as a region whose internal political and social dynamics allegedly threaten Western civilization itself, according to the NSS.
The NSS explicitly calls on European states to assume “primary responsibility” for their own defence, signaling the end of unconditional U.S. security guarantees. Support is made conditional on defence spending, political alignment with Washington, and willingness to adopt U.S. economic and technological policies. At the same time, the document accuses the European Union of restricting political liberty, undermining sovereignty through transnational governance, and eroding civilizational confidence. The implication is clear: Europe is no longer a trusted partner but a subject of ideological suspicion.
This perspective is reinforced by leading figures in the Trump administration. J.D. Vance has repeatedly framed Europe as culturally decadent and politically captured by liberal elites hostile to national sovereignty. Marco Rubio has echoed similar claims, portraying the EU as an over-regulated entity that constrains freedom and economic dynamism. Together, these narratives converge on a single conclusion: Europe is not an ally whose autonomy should be strengthened, but a space whose internal transformation should be encouraged from the outside.
Alliance or Vassalage? NATO and the Historical Asymmetry
The erosion of the alliance did not begin with Trump. The transatlantic relationship has always been characterized by structural asymmetry, particularly within NATO, as put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his seminal work The Grand Chessbord.
While Washington consistently invoked the rhetoric of “equal partnership” and professed its fidelity to the cause of a united Europe, but in practice the United States has been less clear and less consistent, according to Brzezinski. NATO functioned primarily as an instrument of U.S. strategic influence over Europe. American leadership was not merely military but political, shaping European threat perceptions, defence doctrines, and even internal debates about integration, following the former Carter’s national security advisor.
This asymmetry was tolerated and often embraced by European elites in exchange for security guarantees. However, it also discouraged the emergence of genuine European strategic autonomy. The United States supported European integration rhetorically, but only insofar as it did not challenge American primacy. Washington’s tacit encouragement of British obstructionism towards deeper integration and its preference for German leadership over French strategic ambition exemplified this logic.
Trump’s America has merely abandoned the pretense that this asymmetry serves a shared project. NATO remains useful insofar as it enforces burden-shifting, but the alliance is no longer framed as a community of equals. The symbolic absence of the United States from key NATO ministerial meetings in December 2025 illustrated this shift vividly. The message was unmistakable: Europe is expected to perform, but not to lead.
European Denial and Strategic Schizophrenia
Despite mounting evidence, EU leadership continues to insist on the fiction of alliance. Statements by senior EU figures, including the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, reiterate that the United States remains Europe’s closest ally. This discourse reflects not strategic assessment but political dependency. It allows European institutions to avoid confronting the implications of American disengagement while preserving existing power structures within the EU.
The result is a schizophrenic relationship. Europe is asked to spend more on defence, align with U.S. export controls, confront China economically, and accept a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, while simultaneously being denied strategic voice or respect. Europe must do more, but with less autonomy. This contradiction paralyses European policy-making and erodes public trust.
As Sven Biscop has argued, Europe can no longer rely on a “global partnership” with the United States. The relationship has become transactional, conditional, and increasingly coercive. Persisting in the language of alliance under these conditions is not diplomacy; it is denial.
Interference Rather Than Partnership
Perhaps the most striking feature of the new U.S. posture is its openness about intervening in European domestic politics. The NSS explicitly endorses support for so-called “patriotic European parties,” a veiled reference to far-right and Eurosceptic movements. This represents a fundamental rupture with the norms of alliance politics. Allies do not cultivate political opposition within each other’s systems.
Such practices place the United States as a source of hybrid threats to the European Union. The objective is not partnership but fragmentation: weakening EU integration, undermining regulatory power, and freeing U.S. corporations from European constraints. In this sense, American policy towards Europe increasingly mirrors strategies long associated with Moscow.
Europe’s Untapped Leverage
The tragedy of Europe’s current position is that it is not powerless. The EU remains the United States’ largest economic partner, a regulatory superpower, and a critical node in global supply chains. Transatlantic interdependence is a reality, not a rhetoric. Yet European leaders consistently fail to mobilize this leverage.
This failure reflects a deeper political culture of vassalage. Accepting American demands appears easier than articulating an autonomous European strategy. Strategic dependence has become a habit, even when it is no longer reciprocated. As Biscop warns, such behavior invites further disrespect.
Conclusion: Facing Reality or Accepting Irrelevance
The transatlantic alliance, as Europe has known it since 1945, is over. The United States no longer sees Europe as an ally, but as a subordinate region whose autonomy is undesirable and whose internal politics are legitimate targets of intervention. Europe’s refusal to acknowledge this shift has produced a dysfunctional and humiliating relationship.
The choice facing Europe is stark. Either it confronts reality and begins the long process of rebuilding military, strategic, and political sovereignty, or it accepts progressive irrelevance in a world of power politics.
Biscop argues that Europe must finally declare its independence from the United States and regain its military-strategic and political sovereignty. Failing this, the Old Continent will suffer the same fate as Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq, victims of Washington’s struggle against “anti-democratic regimes”.
There will be no further wake-up calls. Denial has become Europe’s most dangerous vulnerability.
Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
