The geopolitical landscape of the 21st century is shifting rapidly, demanding a reassessment of established security structures. For decades, the European Union has relied on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the bedrock of its security. This alliance provided stability during the Cold War, but in today’s multipolar world, this deep and limiting dependency on the United States is becoming increasingly untenable.
If the EU is to become a truly independent global actor, it must make the difficult but necessary decision to step out of NATO and build its own sovereign defense architecture. One of the clearest, most damaging proofs of this divergent reality can be found in the West’s fractured approach to Iran.
The Divergence of Strategic Interests and the Iran Lesson
The core of the problem lies in the fundamental strategic priorities of Washington and Brussels, which are no longer fully aligned. While the United States is increasingly focused on the Indo-Pacific region and its systemic rivalry with China, Europe’s primary security concerns remain centered on its immediate neighborhood: Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East.
This divergence is nowhere more apparent than in the catastrophic failure of unified transatlantic policy towards Iran. For decades, European powers, notably the E3 (Germany, France, and the UK), led meticulous diplomatic efforts to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. This agreement was hailed as a benchmark for European soft power and a critical security measure for the region.
However, the 2018 unilateral withdrawal from the deal by the Trump administration, followed by the re-imposition of crippling economic sanctions, fundamentally undermined European strategic interests. The EU was effectively held hostage by American policy. European businesses, which had started to invest in Iran, were forced to retreat, and European banks were threatened with exclusion from the US financial system.
The EU’s subsequent attempts to create alternative payment mechanisms, like INSTEX, proved ineffective, highlighting how American unilateralism can invalidate European sovereignty. The US’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, far from stabilizing the region, heightened tensions, creating a direct security threat for Europe.
The lesson from Iran is clear: As long as the EU is bound within a security framework dominated by the United States, it will remain vulnerable to Washington’s policy swings. European security and economic interests are too often subordinated to American strategic goals, limiting Europe’s diplomatic flexibility and its ability to engage with critical regional actors on its own terms.
The Catalyst for Military and Technological Autonomy
True geopolitical power requires military and technological independence. Currently, European defense relies heavily on American hardware, intelligence, and command structures. This reliance creates a comfort zone that prevents the European defense industry from reaching its full potential.
Leaving NATO would serve as a forced catalyst for integration. It would compel the EU to consolidate its fragmented military capabilities, invest heavily in its own defense technology, and create a unified European command. Instead of buying off-the-shelf American systems, European capital would flow into European innovation, strengthening our technological independence and creating a robust, self-sufficient defense industrial base.
Confronting the Consequences
We must be realistic about the consequences of such a monumental shift. Transitioning away from NATO is not a step to be taken lightly. The immediate effects would be severe and demanding:
Financial Burden: The cost of replacing the American security umbrella will be immense. EU member states will need to drastically and permanently increase defense spending, diverting funds from other national budgets.
Short-Term Vulnerability: During the transition phase, the EU would experience a temporary gap in deterrence capabilities, particularly regarding nuclear deterrence and high-end military logistics.
Diplomatic Friction: A European exit from NATO would fundamentally alter transatlantic relations, likely leading to economic and political friction with the United States and non-EU NATO members like the United Kingdom.
Internal Political Division: Forging a unified European army and foreign policy will require overcoming deep-seated national interests and political resistance within the EU itself.
The Path Forward
Despite these daunting hurdles, the challenges are not insurmountable. Every complex systemic problem can be analyzed and solved with sufficient political will and strategic foresight.
For the European Union to secure its future, protect its economic interests, and stand as an equal among global superpowers, it must graduate from its historical reliance on Washington.
The path to a sovereign, secure, and technologically independent Europe will be expensive and politically fraught. However, the alternative is to remain a permanent junior partner in a changing world order.
True European autonomy is only possible outside the confines of NATO.
After weeks of threatening language from the American presidency, the European Union has reached its limit. Yesterday, the 27 member states proposed a 93 billion euro package of measures following the announcement of import tariffs on eight European countries participating in a Greenland mission.
US-EU Greenland Conflict
EU Strategy
Whether this will be enough to force a reversal of policy remains to be seen. However, observers suggest the EU has more than one strategic advantage.
There is a growing realization among member states that a firm stance is now required. When an ally threatens to seize territory from a European nation, the Union is left with no other choice.
The EU package is viewed as a significant opening signal. The measures involve import tariffs on American products such as jeans, motorcycles, and aircraft. These products are primarily manufactured in regions with high concentrations of government supporters. By targeting these areas, the EU believes it can cause significant economic and political pressure.
The announced 10 percent import tariff for the eight countries, including the Netherlands, is set to take effect on February 1. If this plan is not withdrawn, the European counter-tariffs will also commence.
EU member states hope to avoid this escalation through diplomacy. In the coming week, efforts will be centered on the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where many leaders will be present. However, the period of caution and accommodation appears to be over, replaced by a shift toward firmer action.
The EU had already drafted this list of import tariffs last year following the outbreak of a global trade war. While the measures were withdrawn after a temporary agreement in July, they were brought back into play during an emergency meeting yesterday.
‘Trade Bazooka’
The EU holds another major strategic asset: the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI). This tool, often referred to as the ‘trade bazooka’, allows the EU to deny companies from third countries access to the European internal market.
This instrument has been in development for several years, intended primarily as a deterrent. The expectation is that the threat of its use should be sufficient to prevent economic aggression from other nations.
While there have been repeated calls for its deployment over the past year, the likelihood of it being activated has now increased significantly.
Boundaries
The EU is currently navigating a difficult diplomatic path. While it is deemed necessary to use the language of power to influence decision-making, there are clear risks involved.
A major concern is the potential impact on other geopolitical conflicts, such as the situation in Ukraine. A severe escalation in trade tensions could lead to a scenario where security guarantees for Europe are weakened, a situation that must be avoided.
Despite these risks, there is a consensus that the EU must keep all options on the table. The European market remains the most powerful tool available, and there is a readiness to utilize the provisions within the anti-coercion instrument if necessary.
Playing on Prestige
Strategic efforts may also focus on the American desire for historical prestige regarding the acquisition of Greenland. This ambition has existed for over a century, though previous attempts were always rebuffed.
The EU can frame the consequences of this conflict by highlighting how such actions could be remembered as the catalyst for the fragmentation of Western alliances and NATO. This appeal to historical legacy is seen as a potential point of leverage.
What is the ‘trade bazooka’?
The term trade bazooka is the unofficial nickname for the European Union’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI). This is a powerful trade policy weapon that was officially adopted in 2023.
This is what the instrument entails:
Purpose: It is designed to retaliate when non-EU countries apply economic pressure to force the EU or a member state into specific political concessions.
Extensive powers: Beyond standard tariffs, the EU can deny companies access to the internal market, restrict foreign investment, block access to public contracts, and limit intellectual property rights.
Speed: The European Commission has been granted the authority to act faster and more decisively, reducing the time previously required for consensus among all member states.
Deterrence: The impact of these measures is designed to be so significant that the mere threat should discourage other countries from attempting economic blackmail.
What defines a strong NATO ally? Since the alliance’s founding in 1949, debates over burden-sharing have been constant. Donald Trump, both in his first and current term, has sharply criticized European members for underfunding their defense while relying on U.S. protection—and not without reason.
His message is resonating. Belgium’s defense minister recently vowed to end the country’s “national shame” of being NATO’s most notorious free rider. Even Iceland, which lacks a standing army, is exploring how to contribute more meaningfully.
Image: Pixabay
To assess NATO members’ contributions, consider the “three Cs”: cash, capabilities, and commitment.
Cash: More Members Are Meeting Targets—But Is It Enough?
Today, 22 of NATO’s 32 members meet the 2% of GDP defense spending target, a big jump from just seven a decade ago. Italy and Spain are on track to join them this year. But the bar is rising: at the upcoming summit in The Hague, NATO is expected to adopt a new target of 3.5% of GDP, plus 1.5% for supporting infrastructure.
Still, raw spending figures can be misleading. Some countries inflate their numbers by including loosely related expenses under “defense.”
Capabilities: What the Money Buys Matters More
NATO recommends that at least 20% of defense budgets go toward equipment—most members comply, and that threshold may soon rise to 33%. But quantity doesn’t equal quality. Greece, for example, spends heavily on gear, but much of it is aimed at deterring Turkey, not Russia.
The NATO Defense Planning Process aims to align national purchases with alliance needs. After years of counterterrorism focus, the threat from Russia is refocusing priorities. Allies are now being asked to build forces primarily for deterrence in Europe. New “capability targets” expected this month will guide what each country should provide—especially in areas where the U.S. may scale back, like intelligence, long-range strike, and logistics.
Commitment: Who Shows Up?
Operationally, even the most frugal allies are stepping up. Spain leads a multinational brigade in Slovakia; Italy commands one in Bulgaria. Portuguese jets patrol Baltic airspace. Smaller nations like Albania and Slovenia also contribute troops to NATO’s eastern flank.
But NATO wants more. In a major conflict, it aims to deploy 100,000 troops within 10 days and another 200,000 within 30. Without more European investment in recruitment and readiness, those goals may be out of reach—especially without U.S. troops.
A Smarter Division of Labor?
NATO is exploring a “multi-speed” model: larger militaries take on high-end combat roles, while smaller states focus on logistics, cyber, or niche capabilities. Luxembourg, for instance, supports satellite communications and surveillance; Iceland runs an air-defense system.
Getting underperformers like Spain and Italy to specialize more effectively may be key. Encouraging them to invest in maritime capabilities could be a strategic win.
The official agenda for the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting doesn’t mention it anywhere. However, as they convene in Brussels today and tomorrow, discussions behind the scenes are very much focused on the next steps NATO countries might take in the war in Ukraine. Among these considerations is the potential deployment of European troops to Ukraine—so-called “boots on the ground”—which is not being ruled out.
This has been confirmed by insiders within the military alliance involved in the meeting at NATO headquarters. This summit is the last before Donald Trump potentially resumes his position in the White House, making the discussions even more pressing.
Uncertain Times
Trump has previously claimed he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in a day” and has expressed intentions to drastically reduce U.S. aid to Ukraine. How he plans to achieve this remains unclear. Within NATO, there is considerable apprehension about these uncertain times.
President Zelensky seems unwilling to wait for Trump’s plans to unfold and has taken proactive steps. In recent weeks, he has openly discussed the possibility of a ceasefire with Russia. Just days ago, the Ukrainian president also expressed, for the first time, a willingness to temporarily relinquish territories annexed by Russia. However, he demands something in return: strong security guarantees for Ukraine if such an agreement is violated.
Membership Debate
For Zelensky, NATO membership remains the ultimate security guarantee. He believes such membership should apply to parts of Ukraine not under Russian control. However, despite Ukraine’s long-standing aspiration for membership, NATO is unlikely to extend an invitation anytime soon.
The alliance is divided on this issue, and since NATO decisions require consensus, Ukraine’s desire for membership will not be fulfilled in the near term. However, a potential ceasefire compels NATO countries to consider what security guarantees they could provide to Ukraine in the interim. Deploying troops to oversee such an agreement is one option being discussed.
The Estonian Foreign Minister recently advocated for sending troops, and French President Emmanuel Macron mentioned this idea back in February. Germany, among others, strongly opposed the proposal.
No Options Off the Table
According to the French newspaper Le Monde, discussions about “boots on the ground” have recently gained momentum. The French Foreign Minister previously urged that no red lines should be drawn in supporting Ukraine. When asked whether this included sending French troops to Ukraine, he replied that no option should be excluded.
This stance reflects a deliberate strategy of “strategic ambiguity,” leaving adversaries uncertain about future actions to avoid revealing NATO’s hand. Similarly, the EU’s new foreign policy chief has stated that no options are off the table when it comes to supporting Kyiv. Over the weekend, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas visited Ukraine.
The deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine remains an extremely sensitive topic. Russian President Putin already claims that the West is waging war against Russia, a narrative frequently repeated on state television. In his view, “boots on the ground” would signify further escalation, as NATO forces would be physically present on Ukrainian soil.
This doesn’t necessarily mean NATO troops would engage in direct combat with Russia. Previous discussions have considered training Ukrainian soldiers within Ukraine itself rather than abroad.
As a potential ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine draws nearer, all options are once again being reviewed in NATO capitals and behind the scenes at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Only when a ceasefire appears genuinely imminent will it officially make the agenda.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, roelthijssen.nl uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
