China's President Xi Jinping. Europe faces a choice: continue with a transatlantic alliance with the Trump administration that is conditional, or explore a new balance with China
Europe is experiencing a period of profound strategic turbulence. The erosion of transatlantic relations has left policymakers scrambling to redefine the continent’s role in a rapidly shifting global order. Some European security analysts have gone so far as to argue that a US withdrawal from Europe would be as destabilising as a nuclear strike by Russia. While this assessment may be alarmist, it reflects an undeniable anxiety: the fear that Washington may no longer see Europe as an indispensable partner.
Instead of panicking, Europe must face an uncomfortable truth. The US is not abandoning its hegemonic role, but rather recalibrating it to serve its own interests more effectively. What Washington seeks is not a full disengagement, but rather an end to what it perceives as Europe’s cost-free ride under the American security umbrella. This new dynamic is forcing European leaders to rethink their foreign policy — not just in relation to the US, but also in terms of potential alternatives.
Since the end of World War II, the US has maintained an intricate hegemonic structure with Europe at its core, anchored in military security, economic control and political influence. But maintaining this system has become increasingly costly. Washington’s debt is rising, its global commitments are stretched thin, and domestic sentiment is shifting towards a more transactional approach to diplomacy. Under the doctrine of “America First,” every international relationship — whether with allies or adversaries — is now viewed through a pragmatic cost-benefit lens.
Europe, long accustomed to the predictability of transatlantic solidarity, is realising that its strategic importance is now measured in financial and military contributions rather than historical ties. The Biden administration has maintained much of this policy framework, and following Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the trajectory has accelerated.
The war in Ukraine has been a defining moment for transatlantic relations. Recently, renowned American economist Jeffrey Sachs labeled the conflict a “proxy war” during a speech at the European Parliament, arguing that Washington’s approach has deepened Europe’s vulnerabilities. More strikingly, Sachs warned that Europe should resist the temptation to treat China as an enemy. The fact that such a message was not only delivered but also tolerated in a European forum suggests a growing openness to reassessing strategic alignments.
For years, European policymakers have clung to the belief that Nato has “never been more united”. But behind closed doors, tensions are growing. Washington’s priorities do not always align with Europe’s long-term interests. The prolonged conflict with Russia has drained European resources, severed economic ties with Moscow, and entrenched geopolitical animosities. And yet, Europe remains uncertain about where its strategic autonomy should be anchored: in Brussels or in Washington?
Some European leaders argue that the continent must remain an integral player in the US-China competition, convincing Washington that Europe’s unique value lies in shaping global dynamics. But the United States has remained largely indifferent to these overtures. The message from Washington is clear: Europe must contribute more if it wants continued American security guarantees.
This realisation has prompted a broader debate: should Europe look beyond Washington for its strategic future? One of the fundamental tensions in transatlantic relations is the divergence in diplomatic approaches. Europe has long championed a “values-based foreign policy”, emphasising human rights, multilateralism and rule-of-law principles. The US, on the other hand, is increasingly embracing “transactional diplomacy”, where alliances are subject to economic and security calculations.
This shift is particularly evident in Washington’s approach to Nato. The US is making it clear that the transatlantic alliance is no longer about shared values — it is about price tags. This was evident at the recent Munich Security Conference, where the dominant question was no longer how to strengthen Nato, but rather who will lead Europe in an era of American unpredictability. Some argue that Germany should assume a more assertive leadership role, while others lament Britain’s absence from the European Union. But perhaps the most striking question raised at the conference was whether China could emerge as Europe’s new strategic partner.
As US-European relations fray, China has moved with calculated precision to present itself as a reliable and stable alternative. The contrast with Washington’s erratic approach could not be starker. While the US redefines its global priorities, China is offering Europe a vision of continuity and cooperation. China’s engagement is not passive — it is a deliberate strategy designed to position Beijing as an indispensable actor in global stability. Unlike Trump’s approach of bullying and confrontation, China is positioning itself as a partner willing to participate in economic and strategic dialogue. And while European leaders remain wary of Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions, the economic incentives are difficult to ignore.
Washington’s trade wars, particularly its push to restrict Chinese technological influence, have placed Europe in a difficult position. The US expects European alignment in containing China’s rise, particularly in critical sectors like electric vehicles and digital infrastructure. But can Europe afford to fully embrace Washington’s containment strategy when its own economic interests are at stake?
Europe’s challenge is not merely one of alliance management — it is about defining its own agency in an evolving world order. The Trump administration’s approach to Ukraine, including Vice-president JD Vance’s speech in Munich, has sent a chilling message to European capitals: US commitment to European security is no longer guaranteed. By opening direct negotiations with Vladimir Putin, Trump has raised the possibility that Europe’s decades-old security arrangement is being rewritten without its input.
In response, France’s President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are trying hard to ensure a unified response from European leaders. But the question remains: does Europe have the political will to chart its own course? If the continent wants to maintain its influence, it must define its foreign relations based on its own strategic interests rather than external expectations.
China’s growing engagement with Europe is not about replacing the US; it is about filling the gaps left by Washington’s shifting priorities. Beijing’s recent discussions about aligning its Belt and Road Initiative with the EU’s Global Gateway Strategy are not merely symbolic gestures; they represent a real opportunity for Europe to diversify its strategic partnerships. Europe’s future cannot be dictated by Washington.
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan.