It was explicitly stated that after January 20, 2025, the Trump administration would significantly reduce the US contribution to Europe’s defense and shift its geopolitical priorities toward Israel and the Asia-Pacific region.

On March 24, 2025, leaked messages from the Signal communication app caused a scandal, revealing discussions within a chat group created by the US National Security Advisor. The messages from the Secretary of Defense once again exposed the US administration’s unfiltered perspective on Europe.

In one of the messages, Mr. Hegseth expressed his frustration regarding the US attack on the Houthis, who posed a threat to the Red Sea maritime trade route, saying,

“I hate bailing Europe out again.”

Later, Hegseth further clarified that the US only uses this route for 3% of its trade, whereas Europe relies on it for 40%. As a reminder, the primary reason for the US attack on Yemen is not so much the protection of European interests but rather safeguarding Israel’s security concerns against both the Houthis and Iran. Indeed, even after more than ten days of American attacks, the Houthis did not back down, prompting the US to deploy a second aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, to the region. The timing of this decision is significant, as it came after Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport was struck by the Houthis. Additionally, the deployment of seven B-2 bombers and ten KC-135 aerial refueling tankers to the US base in Guam after March 24 is also a clear signal intended for Iran.

In short, Hegseth’s leaked message regarding Europe is not directly but rather indirectly related to the US objectives in the region. Whether this leak was intentional or accidental, it will undoubtedly accelerate ongoing defense policy development efforts in Europe.

European Defense Without the US 

NATO was established under US leadership to keep the Soviet Union away from Western Europe and to suppress centuries-old rivalries among European powers—especially between the UK, France, and Germany. The alliance remained intact throughout the Cold War and, contrary to promises made to Russia after the Soviet collapse, expanded eastward. When the Cold War ended, NATO had 16 members; today, it has 32.

After the Cold War, NATO was used as an instrument of US geopolitical interests in various places—particularly in Kosovo and Libya—without UN resolutions, violating its intended purpose. Because of this, NATO has transformed into an organization that, for many countries, symbolizes crises rather than peace. Between 1949 and 2025, the US ensured European protection in exchange for economic gains and influence. However, during the Trump era, it became clear that this system was no longer working. The US not only failed to see a return on its investment, but after the Ukraine-Russia war, it found itself increasingly harmed by an unsustainable process. Since a new global security architecture has not yet emerged, the EU is now in a state of uncertainty. The worst part is that despite the US openly abandoning them, European leaders continue to base their calculations on the possibility of US aid. However, the US alone cannot contain China. If the US and Russia were to reconcile in the future, the EU could face a deadlock, potentially even pushing Europe closer to China.

Under current conditions, the US withdrawal from Europe presents the EU with two serious short- and medium-term challenges:

1. Ensuring and maintaining peace in Ukraine.

2. Enhancing Europe’s defense capabilities to deter Russia.

Meanwhile, the US is aware of Russia’s advances in Ukraine and is eager to secure a ceasefire. However, European countries are acting competitively in this regard. Ukraine must be convinced to seek peace, but European nations—under the influence of the UK and the global financial oligarchy—continue to encourage the war. This first challenge is urgent and rapidly evolving. The US strongly opposes using NATO as a peacekeeping force in the Ukraine crisis. Similarly, Hungary opposes the use of the EU for this purpose. As a result, five countries have emerged as the Coalition of the Willing to provide security and deterrence for Ukraine outside of NATO and the EU. This group consists of the UK, France, Germany, Poland, and Italy—Europe’s largest economies and most populous nations.

However, forming an effective military force outside the NATO framework that can deter Russia is difficult. Moreover, given recent history of hostility, Russia is unlikely to show any flexibility toward the UK and France. In my view, given Russia’s strong position, the involvement of the UN Security Council and the UN Charter will be inevitable to reach a resolution. Additionally, the US withdrawal from Europe leaves the EU particularly vulnerable in two key areas:

1. The nuclear umbrella.

The EU lacks nuclear capabilities aside from France’s arsenal (290 warheads), especially after Brexit. France and the UK together have around 550 nuclear warheads, which is insufficient to deter Russia’s 5,500 warheads.

2. Conventional military capabilities.

Since the Ukraine war, Russia has significantly increased its defense budget and defense industry production, transitioning to a wartime economy. This has widened the military capability gap between Russia and Europe. The events following January 20, 2025, have demonstrated that not only the EU but even NATO without the US cannot provide security guarantees for Europe and Kyiv.

Rearming Europe

Image: Rutte with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on 29 October 2024 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

In response to rapidly evolving circumstances, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a strategic defense initiative called the ReArm Europe Plan on March 4, 2025. This plan aims to strengthen Europe’s defense infrastructure with an investment of up to €800 billion by 2030. The plan’s key components include:

1. Relaxing financial rules to allow member states to increase defense spending.

2. Providing €150 billion in loans for joint defense projects.

3. Redirecting existing EU funds toward defense investments.

4. Encouraging the European Investment Bank to support the defense sector.

5. Attracting private capital to invest in defense.

Brussels also plans to establish a crisis committee to respond more effectively to emergencies. This committee will focus on training EU citizens on crisis response and protecting critical infrastructure. It aims to enhance preparedness for crises such as wars and climate emergencies. However, the reason for creating this new committee remains unclear, given the existing EU Military Committee (EUMC) and the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC).

Joint White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030 

On March 19, 2025, the EU released a Joint White Paper titled “European Defence Readiness 2030.” Prepared by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the 23-page report appears to be based on four key assumptions:

1. The post-1945 security architecture has changed.

2. Russia is a permanent enemy, and China is a global competitor challenging the rules-based order.

3. Supporting Ukraine is Europe’s most urgent defense priority, and the Russian threat to Ukraine is the greatest risk to collective security.

4. NATO and transatlantic support will remain the foundation of European security.

The report prioritizes the Russian threat and the war in Ukraine, while also recognizing geopolitical challenges from North Africa, the Middle East, the Arctic Ocean, and China. Additionally, it highlights security threats such as terrorism, hybrid attacks, the climate crisis, mass migration, and organized crime. Defining its primary mission as deterring Russia and securing Europe’s future, the report strongly advocates significant increases in defense spending. It warns that Europe is falling behind in military modernization and emphasizes the need to strengthen collective defense. Drawing lessons from three years of war in Ukraine, the report identifies seven key capability areas that require urgent investment to modernize Europe’s armed forces.

1. Air and Missile Defense – Developing a multi-layered defense system against aerial threats.

2. Artillery Systems – Enhancing long-range precision strike capabilities.

3. Strategic Stockpiling of Ammunition and Missiles – Ensuring sufficient reserves for sustained military operations.

4. Drones and Counter-Drone Systems – Advancing reconnaissance, surveillance, and attack capabilities.

5. Military Mobility – Improving transport infrastructure for rapid troop movements.

6. Artificial Intelligence, Quantum, Cyber, and Electronic Warfare – Investing in next-generation defense technologies.

7. Strategic Force Multipliers and Critical Infrastructure Protection – Enhancing capabilities such as air bridges, aerial refueling, intelligence and surveillance, maritime situational awareness, secure communications, space security, and military fuel infrastructure.

The EU aims to coordinate defense investments and projects among 23 member states while demanding a significant increase in defense spending. At the same time, the EU calls for continued support for Ukraine, especially as US aid has been cut off. Over the past three years, the US has provided €65 billion in direct military aid to Ukraine, while the EU has contributed €49 billion. With the assumption that US support will not resume, the White Paper proposes supplying Ukraine with 2 million artillery shells annually and air defense systems, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The document also sets the integration of Ukraine into the EU security infrastructure as a final objective.

How Realistic Are These Goals?

According to the Joint White Paper, the European defense industry currently lacks the production capacity and speed to meet the defense needs of 23 member states. The industry is fragmented, and key players mainly invest in their domestic markets. For this reason, the EU aims to increase production capacity, reduce dependence on external suppliers, and strengthen cooperation among member states. Since 2021, European defense spending has increased by 31%, reaching €326 billion in 2024. However, this amount remains lower than that of the US, Russia, or China.

The ReArm Europe initiative plans a total investment of €950 billion to meet urgent military needs and reverse years of underinvestment.

But are the 23 EU economies willing to fund this amount at the expense of public welfare and prosperity? No.

Would €950 billion be enough to deter Russia? No.

Where will this money come from? From taxpayers.

According to Von der Leyen’s plan, EU countries could generate approximately €650 billion over four years by increasing their defense budgets by 1.5% of GDP. Additionally, a €150 billion credit instrument called the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) Fund will be raised in capital markets to finance investments in missile defense, drones, and cybersecurity. These funds will be distributed to member states upon request, based on national defense plans. This means higher taxes, more austerity measures, and financial restrictions. Recent war readiness campaigns in EU countries—such as the recommendation to stockpile 72 hours’ worth of food and initiatives to recruit women into military service—could be seen as efforts to prepare the public for new taxes and austerity measures.

It is worth remembering that in 2006, during the financial crisis in Southern Cyprus, the EU seized citizens’ bank deposits. Despite all these austerity measures, analysts argue that restoring the balance with Russia could take at least five to ten years. Through propaganda—such as “The Russians are coming, soon everyone will speak Russian” or “Russia will invade Poland and the Baltic states”—the EU is attempting to divert public attention from pressing issues such as unemployment, migration, economic stagnation, income inequality, and the decline of the middle class, which could otherwise lead to social unrest.

Meanwhile, Europe’s financial elites continue to profit. Defense companies like the German Rheinmetall are experiencing unprecedented gains, driven by fears of a Russian threat and the narrative of US abandonment. Rheinmetall bonds have surged by 1000% in the past three years. Rather than deterring Russia, the EU’s White Paper appears to be an attempt to control its own increasingly marginalized and economically struggling populations, preventing potential social uprisings.

Is Trust in the U.S. Permanent?

European Union officials repeatedly emphasize that NATO remains the cornerstone of European defense and that cooperation with the U.S. is crucial. However, recent history raises doubts about the long-term reliability of the U.S. as a security partner. Trump’s aggressive policies toward allies continue. He imposed high tariffs on Canada, leading Canadian Prime Minister to declare, “We are under attack and must defend ourselves.” Trump suggested buying Greenland from Denmark, stating, “For international security, we need Greenland. We must have it.” Under this perspective, a U.S.-dependent strategy risks provoking conflict with Russia.

In that regard, trusting the U.S. while simultaneously escalating tensions with Russia (especially through Ukraine) could drag Europe into a war it is unprepared for. On the other hand, Europe is already discussing a defense plan without the U.S. On March 27 in Paris, the “Ukraine Coalition of the Willing Conference” gathered the UK, France, Germany, and Nordic countries to explore an independent European defense strategy before the upcoming June 2025 NATO summit. However, shifting away from U.S. leadership would ignite power struggles within Europe. If the U.S. reduces its military role in Europe, who do you think should take the lead in European defense, UK, France, Germany?

The Structural Weakness of Europe’s Defense Industry

Europe cannot independently meet its military needs as of today’s capabilities. In tank production, there are some initiatives to increase the current level of overall tank production capacity in Europe especially to beef up Ukraine. The German company Rheinmetall is setting up a tank factory in Ukraine that will produce only 35 tanks per month. In the shipbuilding area, Europe’s commercial ship industry is huge, but its warship building capacity is limited to about 10-15 warships per year. On the other hand, the combat aircraft production at its peak, (the Eurofighter Typhoon) was produced at a rate of 20-25 per year.

Current estimates suggest Europe could produce a maximum of 40-60 aircraft annually if all resources were dedicated to military production. For the Russian these values are different. Russia has ramped up production to 100 tanks per month while it builds at about half the rate of Europe. For the combat aircraft Russian production has doubled from 25 to 50 per year over the past three years. So, it can be said that a European defense without the U.S. would be chaotic. If the U.S. withdraws from European defense, a power vacuum will emerge, creating internal rivalries. Europe lacks the industrial capacity to sustain a long-term military buildup on par with Russia. Without a clear leader in Europe, the continent would struggle to unify its defense strategy, possibly leading to disorganization and fragmentation.

Europe Cannot Escape Its Colonial Past

Many of Europe’s major powers today (such as the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Italy) have their 19th and 20th-century history deeply rooted in colonialism. Through imperialism, capital accumulation, and the exploitation of distant lands, Europe became enriched by using the labor and resources of colonized nations. Military, economic, and soft power, along with large commercial firms and navies, enabled the oppression and exploitation of impoverished and defenseless states over centuries. The biggest reason for Africa’s underdevelopment today is the historical exploitation that occurred between the 15th and 17th centuries, during which millions were enslaved for cheap labor.

.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

.

Furthermore, Europe ruthlessly extracted valuable minerals and resources, especially gold. This unchecked exploitation of resources significantly hindered the development of Africa. Today, Europe is flooded with migrants and refugees from countries it once colonized. Many of these individuals are fleeing poverty, conflict, and instability. Africa, particularly the Sahel region, is trying every possible route to reach European ports via the Mediterranean. The migration crisis will only cease when there is a halt to bloodshed in Africa, end to civil wars, and economic stability. The current population of Africa is 1.4 billion, compared to just 133 million at the start of the 20th century.

A rational perspective would suggest that Europe must create stability in Africa or cooperate with powers that can foster it to avoid being overwhelmed by this massive population growth. Today, the largest force for stability in Africa is China. Yet, instead of seeing China as a partner, the EU views it as a rival in the region. This is a direct consequence of Europe’s colonial mindset. Even though China’s presence may ultimately help curb the migration to Europe, Europe remains uncomfortable with China’s growing influence in Africa. In summary, Europe’s colonial history continues to influence its attitudes toward migration and foreign policy, especially in Africa. Until this mindset changes, Europe’s ability to resolve issues related to migration and global influence will remain limited.

Lessons for Turkiye

On the other hand, Turkiye has been continuously delayed at the EU doors for the last 67 years, trying to become European, and the possibility of not being accepted for full membership is extremely high. Until now, the EU has never had a positive approach to any of Turkiye’s geopolitical interests. This time, in the White Paper, it says:

“Turkiye is a candidate country for EU membership and has long been a partner in the Common Security and Defence Policy area. The EU, in accordance with the European Council decisions of April 2024, will continue to work constructively to develop a partnership based on mutual benefits in all areas of common interest, based on Turkiye’s equal commitment to progress in cooperation on all matters of importance for the EU.”

So, will Turkiye say yes to future proposals from the EU without conceding anything?

Will it risk handing over its unique geopolitical position and the blood of Mehmetçik (Turkish soldiers) to an EU that cannot rid itself of its colonial identity?

Will Turkiye approach the EU with Atatürk’s lenses of independence, or with the Western-centric lenses that ignore Europe’s colonial past?

The following paragraph from the introductory section of the White Paper is noteworthy:

“Upholding the international rules-based order will remain of utmost importance, both in our interest and as an expression of our values. But a new international order will be formed in the second half of this decade and beyond. Unless we shape this order – in both our region and beyond – we will be passive recipients of the outcome of this period of interstate competition with all the negative consequences that could flow from this, including the real prospect of full-scale war. History will not forgive us for inaction.”

Then, we must ask: Which rules-based order are you talking about? That order ceased to exist after 2001.

On the other hand, can we expect that the EU’s geopolitical and economic interests will align with Turkiye’s interests? Has the EU abandoned policies that would lead to our fragmentation, such as the Kurdish state to the south that opens to the sea, the hostile stance of Greece in the Aegean, the Sevilla Map that would isolate us from the Blue Homeland, or policies denying the existence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)?

Has any EU country opposed Israel’s genocide in Gaza?

Why does the EU want to continue the war in Ukraine? There is one clear reality: The EU will increase its defense spending and force its already impoverished public to tighten their belts through austerity measures. This can only be achieved by creating enemies and limiting democratic rights.

On the other hand, the EU’s economic and geopolitical interests are on a collision course with Turkish interests. In the EU, where economic stagnation has turned into crisis, corruption is destroying every institution, poverty is rapidly increasing, and freedom of expression has reached levels where arrests occur over a tweet, as heavily criticized by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, there is no place for EU policies in Turkiye’s defense policy. Former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell stated the following at the 2024 Munich Security Conference:

“The era of Western dominance is truly over. Although this is theoretically understood, we have not always been able to draw practical conclusions from this new reality.”

New conditions have already formed. While even the EU admits this, Turkiye’s insistence on full EU membership, both from the government and opposition representatives, can only be explained by the European admiration of the 19th century Ottoman period and the English and American mandate lovers during the Armistice period in Istanbul and the Sivas Congress.

Let us remind you: The world is turning very fast. If Turkiye becomes a full EU member, the EU’s borders will extend to Syria, Iran, and Iraq. The relations of the EU with these countries and Turkiye’s relations with them will inevitably create geopolitical crises and friction areas. Isn’t it clear that our NATO allies are acting against Turkiye in Syrian Kurdistan? Even though it is certain that Turkiye will not be admitted, the fantasy of “Our goal is to be a full EU member” does not align with either geopolitics or history.

Turkiye does not need to be an EU member to reach the level of contemporary civilizations. The situation Turkiye has reached due to submission to the West under the mantra of democracy since 1945 is clear. Today, in our beautiful country, poverty, corruption, moral decay, anti-secular and divisive ethnic polarization, and the use of law for political purposes have reached unprecedented levels. Our beautiful homeland, which has turned into a depot for millions of migrants for Europe, is caught in the whirlpool of submission to the West, unqualified politics, geopolitical blindness, and a corrupt economy. The way out of this chaos is to return to Kemalism and join the Asian century, where we will integrate with the Turkish world. As Europe distances itself from the U.S., it will come to our door with the fantasy of cheap Turkish blood.

Last week, in Greece, an EU country, soldiers marched with anti-Turkish slogans, and in South Cyprus, a new EOKA terrorist organization against Turks was being formed. Meanwhile, American company Chevron has started natural gas explorations in new license areas in the southeast of Crete. Libya can no longer object to this development, which violates the maritime boundary agreement Turkiye made with Libya in 2019. Initially, Libya could have objected, but now it sees that, against the U.S. and the EU, even Turkiye cannot protect its own interests, let alone Ankara’s. After the geopolitical scandal in Syria, Russia and China will also not stand by Turkiye. Geopolitical gains for future generations must not be wasted for internal political struggles and power feud. In these days when the internal front and the peace environment are so fragile, we have no room for error in matters such as sending peacekeepers to Ukraine for EU interests or being dragged into an armed conflict with Iran for Israel geopolitics. If the Turkish people, who have not fought for 100 years, are to fight, it must be for their own interests, not for the interests of the EU or the U.S.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.  

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link