The future of the EU security without the US: A strategic reckoning

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has reshaped global geopolitics overnight. His administration’s reassertion of the America First doctrine, alongside public threats to reduce US commitments to NATO and pressuring European nations to shoulder more of their own defense costs, has placed the European Union at a crossroads. While Europe has long debated the idea of strategic autonomy, the abrupt possibility of a NATO without the US has accelerated urgent discussions about the continent’s security future.
At the same time, the fallout from the Trump administration’s handling of Ukraine—marked by dismissive treatment of President Volodymyr Zelensky and a significant reduction in military aid—has exposed deep cracks in transatlantic relations. European leaders now face a stark reality: Can they forge a collective defense system independent of the US? If NATO becomes a weakened shell of itself, what alternatives exist? And critically, how will actors like Türkiye and Russia exploit this shifting landscape?
Now is the time to explore whether Europe can build its own security architecture, what the consequences of a “NATO minus the United States” scenario might be, the possible strategic role Turkey could play and the threat of an emboldened Vladimir Putin.

A NATO without the US?

Since its inception, NATO has been an American-led alliance. The US provides nearly 70 percent of NATO’s overall military spending, along with key nuclear deterrence, intelligence-sharing, and rapid deployment capabilities. Without Washington, the alliance would be fundamentally weakened.
Several critical gaps would emerge:
• Nuclear Deterrence: The US nuclear umbrella has been NATO’s backbone. While France and the UK possess nuclear weapons, they lack the scale to guarantee deterrence against Russia on behalf of all NATO members.
• Command and Control: The US provides much of NATO’s operational command structure, including strategic logistics, airlift capacity, and satellite intelligence.
• Defense Spending Deficiencies: Most European NATO members have underfunded their militaries for decades, relying on US power instead. Even Germany’s recent commitment to increased military spending falls short of what would be required to sustain a NATO without American support.
While NATO might not collapse outright, it would become a far weaker organization, forcing European states to explore alternative defense structures.

Is the European Defense Initiative viable?

French President Emmanuel Macron has long advocated for strategic autonomy in defense, envisioning an independent European military force. In theory, a European Army—built around France and Germany—could replace NATO’s security role in Europe. However, major obstacles remain:
• Historically, Germany has been hesitant to militarize, and while it has pledged to increase defense spending, Berlin’s defense policy remains largely reactive rather than proactive.
• Poland, the Baltics, and other Eastern European states, which see Russia as their primary threat, have little faith in Paris and Berlin’s willingness to confront Moscow. They have historically preferred US-led security guarantees.
• The EU lacks significant power-projection capabilities, with most European armies structured around NATO’s framework.
Despite these challenges, a European defense framework could emerge as a necessity rather than an option. The creation of an integrated European military-industrial complex, new arms procurement strategies, and enhanced intelligence-sharing might form the foundation of this initiative. But it would take years, if not decades, to replace NATO’s existing capabilities.

A divided EU ve US?

The Trump administration’s humiliating handling of Ukraine—whether through an outright withdrawal of military aid or an imposed peace settlement on Moscow’s terms—has left Europe deeply divided. While some countries, particularly Poland and the Baltics, see Russia as an existential threat, others, such as Hungary and Slovakia, may argue for pragmatism and rapprochement with Moscow.
This divide could lead to:
• A Two-Speed Security Europe: One led by France and Germany, focused on diplomacy and deterrence, and another centered around Eastern Europe, prioritizing hard military defense.
• Fragmentation Within the EU: If Eastern European countries feel abandoned by Western Europe, they may seek security alternatives outside the EU, including bilateral agreements with the UK or even closer ties with Türkiye.
The EU has historically struggled with internal unity, and a security crisis of this scale may either force it to consolidate its defense strategy or deepen its fractures.

Türkiye and strategic future of Europe

With NATO’s fate uncertain, Türkiye stands as one of the most important military players in Europe’s security landscape. Its large, battle-tested army, control over the Bosporus, and geostrategic position between Europe, the Middle East, and Russia make it indispensable.
Ankara could assume multiple roles:
• A Bridge Between NATO and a European Security Initiative: If NATO weakens but does not collapse, Türkiye could serve as a crucial link between Europe and remaining US security interests.
• A Regional Balancer Against Russia: Türkiye has demonstrated a willingness to counterbalance Russian influence in Syria, Libya, and the Caucasus.
• An Independent Power Broker: If neither NATO nor the EU can offer credible security guarantees, Türkiye may pursue a more independent defense posture, engaging in transactional alliances with both Europe and Russia.

Civil liberties vs defense

If Europe finds itself in desperate need of security partners, it may adopt a more pragmatic stance toward Türkiye, prioritizing defense cooperation over political disputes. This could lead to:
• A reduction in EU criticism on issues related to governance and civil liberties.
• Expanded security and intelligence-sharing agreements.
• Renewed discussions on Türkiye’s EU accession process, driven by strategic necessity rather than ideological alignment.
In times of crisis, realpolitik often prevails over ideals, and the EU may find itself making concessions to Türkiye in exchange for military cooperation.

Putin wants a weaker Europe

With NATO weakened and the US retreating from Europe, Russia could see an opportunity to test Europe’s resilience. Possible scenarios include:
• Escalation in Ukraine: If Kyiv loses US support, Russia might push further into eastern Ukraine or even target Odessa.
• Hybrid Warfare in the Baltics: Russia could intensify cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and covert operations to destabilize NATO’s eastern flank.
• Balkan Manipulation: Moscow has long cultivated ties in Serbia and could exploit ethnic tensions to destabilize the region.
With fewer Western constraints, Russia could expand its military presence in the Arctic and Black Sea, challenging European energy security and trade routes.
In this context, Türkiye’s control of the Bosporus and its role as a Black Sea power will become even more critical. Whether Türkiye sides with Europe, maintains neutrality, or seeks a more balanced relationship with Moscow will significantly impact the region’s security dynamics.

Will Europe rise to the challenge?

With Trump’s second presidency reshaping global security, Europe faces a moment of reckoning. A NATO-minus-US scenario would expose the EU’s military weaknesses, but it might also force long-overdue reforms.
Türkiye, with its strategic position and military capabilities, could become an indispensable partner, but at the cost of European idealism. Meanwhile, an emboldened Russia could exploit the situation, testing the limits of Europe’s fractured defenses.
The coming years will determine whether Europe can consolidate its security and emerge stronger—or whether it will remain at the mercy of external powers. One thing is certain: the post-1945 European order is over, and a new reality is taking shape. Whether Europe adapts in time will define its fate for decades to come.