National Interest

by Leon Hadar

    The United States cannot expect a more capable and independent Europe to simply follow its orders.

    For decades, American foreign policy elites have complained about European free-riding on US security guarantees. Europeans, we were told, enjoyed the benefits of American military protection while spending their peace dividends on generous social programs, refusing to meet NATO spending targets and lecturing Washington about multilateralism. The irony is that now, when Europeans are finally showing signs of taking their security interests seriously, many in Washington are treating it as a problem rather than the solution we’ve long demanded.

    The recent moves by European nations to boost defense spending, coordinate military procurement and develop autonomous strategic capabilities represent not a rejection of the transatlantic alliance, but rather its maturation. This is what a multipolar world actually looks like and American policymakers need to decide whether they genuinely want burden-sharing or simply prefer compliant, if useless, client states.

• The End of European Strategic Dependence

    The combination of factors driving Europe’s strategic reassessment is clear enough. The return of great power competition, instability on Europe’s periphery, questions about American reliability regardless of which party controls the White House and the recognition that the post-Cold War peace dividend has evaporated have concentrated minds in European capitals. The Ukraine conflict has served as a clarifying moment, demonstrating that European security cannot be perpetually outsourced to Washington.

    France and Germany are leading discussions about a European defense architecture that can function independently when necessary. Poland and the Baltic states are building serious military capabilities. Even traditionally neutral nations are reconsidering their security postures. This isn’t anti-American sentiment driving policy; it’s the basic realist calculation that states must ultimately be responsible for their own security.

• European Independence: An American Dilemma

    Washington faces a contradiction of its own making. Now that Europe is moving in the direction that Washington has long asked it to go, there is anxiety about the loss of influence. European policies might diverge from American preferences, creating transatlantic friction.

    But this anxiety misses the point. A Europe capable of managing its own security challenges in its neighborhood is precisely what a sustainable transatlantic relationship requires. The alternative is the status quo. European dependency breeds resentment on both sides of the Atlantic, overstretches American commitments and leaves European strategic culture underdeveloped.

• Toward a Post-Hegemonic US-EU Partnership

    The path forward requires adjusting American expectations to match reality. The United States can no longer afford and arguably never could afford, to serve as the perpetual security guarantor for a continent of wealthy, industrialized democracies fully capable of defending themselves. European strategic autonomy doesn’t mean the end of NATO. Rather, it means NATO becomes what it should have been all along: an alliance of relatively equal partners with shared interests, not a protection racket with one overwhelmingly dominant member.

    This transition will be messy. There will be friction over defense industrial cooperation, disagreements about threats and priorities and debates about out-of-area operations. Europeans may make decisions that Washington dislikes. That’s what happens when you have actual allies rather than dependencies.

    The alternative to accepting this reality is to continue down the current path: Americans complaining about burden-sharing while resenting and forestalling any European moves toward genuine capability, Europeans frustrated by American hectoring while remaining strategically dependent. It’s a recipe for alliance decay rather than renewal.

• The Realist Imperative

    From a realist perspective, Europe’s move toward strategic responsibility is both inevitable and desirable. States in an anarchic international system cannot permanently rely on distant protectors whose interests may diverge from their own. The question was never whether Europe would develop autonomous capabilities, but when and under what circumstances.

    For American foreign policy, the challenge is to facilitate this transition rather than resist it. That means accepting that European interests will sometimes differ from American ones, that Europeans will occasionally make different strategic choices and that a multipolar West is healthier than a unipolar one. It means focusing American resources and attention on genuinely vital interests rather than trying to micromanage European security arrangements.

    The era of American hegemony within the Western alliance is ending not because of European ingratitude or American weakness, but because the global distribution of power and the nature of contemporary challenges make it unsustainable. Europeans are finally recognizing this reality and acting accordingly. The sooner Washington accepts and adapts to this new reality, the better positioned both sides of the Atlantic will be to address the genuine security challenges ahead.

    The real test of American foreign policy wisdom will be whether we can welcome European strategic maturity or whether we’ll cling to a hegemonically dependent relationship that serves neither side’s long-term interests.