Empowering European military might for new world order “Europeans have long fallen for the myth of their own weakness”

As the new US administration executes a 180-degree reversal of many of Washington’s previous foreign policy strategies while also pursuing new ones, the resulting geopolitical shift has made calls for “European sovereignty” more urgent than ever.

Disagreements over how best to proceed on issues like Ukraine have pushed European leaders to reaffirm their commitment to Kyiv’s territorial integrity and prepare to bear the primary burden of military support if necessary.

For decades, Europeans have clung to what the German newspaper Die Zeit calls “the myth of their own weakness” and their supposed dependence on an American “security umbrella.” The article argues that Europe can no longer hide behind the US and presents a case for why the continent should not fear standing on its own.

According to the German publication, Berlin in particular has long embodied this hesitation — a mindset reflected in former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s reluctance to provide military assistance to Ukraine in the early phase of the war.

“There is some irony in British Prime Minister Keir Starmer attempting to leverage the UK's ‘special relationship’ with the US for mediation purposes, while simultaneously taking the lead in strengthening Europe — despite not being an EU member,” the article states, referencing the US president’s visit to the UK in September. It raises the question of whether Starmer’s proposed coalition could serve as a model for a future European Defence Union.

The article highlights that EU member states collectively spend €326 billion on defence — more than either China or Russia — and possess combined forces capable of deploying 1.5 million soldiers, a number sufficient to fill the gap left by US troops on the continent.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, aware of the gravity of the current geopolitical moment, is already thinking strategically. She believes up to €800 billion could be mobilized for the “re-armament of Europe.” The creation of an EU defence fund, in addition to national spending, would send a strong signal of resolve to Russia. And while Trump has made clear he does not want to send US troops to Ukraine, the American defence industry remains eager to provide critical military systems such as air defence capabilities.

Lasting peace through “deals”?

The publication's analysis argues there is no historical precedent for a just and lasting peace being achieved through short-term “deals” between great powers — particularly when key actors are excluded or coerced. This, it contends, explains why the White House’s efforts at diplomacy over Ukraine have so far fallen short.

European diplomacy, by contrast, is guided by a balance of interests and power, envisioning a new European security order — a key distinction from Trump’s transactional dealmaking.

While a truce remains a prerequisite for peace, it will only endure with credible security guarantees, which several European powers are now willing to provide. Their past dependence on US protection has led to doubts about their capacity, but Europe’s deterrence potential — embodied in NATO’s European pillar — can fill the gap. For now, the core of Europe’s strategy lies in strengthening Ukraine’s military, now numbering roughly 800,000 troops, the largest in Europe.

According to the article’s analysis, Russia’s proposals from December 2021 and the subsequent Ukraine-Russia negotiations in April 2022 reveal Moscow’s ambition to reshape Europe’s security order along lines reminiscent of the 1945 Yalta Conference, when the continent was divided among the victors. Working in parallel with the United States, Russia seeks to reassert dominance over Eastern Europe and push NATO back to its 1997 borders.

While such goals stand in direct opposition to the interests of both Ukraine and Europe, the article notes that both sides ultimately view the conflict through the lens of order and influence.

Future talks with Moscow, it suggests, will have to strike a delicate balance between avoiding a “New Yalta” and fulfilling Europe’s goal of pairing credible deterrence with the potential for dialogue.

In the end, the outcome will hinge on shifting power dynamics and the military situation on the ground. In this prolonged war of attrition, Russian President Vladimir Putin is betting that he can outlast the West — largely because he perceives Europeans as weak, something they must now prove him wrong about.

By Nazrin Sadigova