USA – EU: Turbulence in relations and balancing on the edge From allies to adversaries?

After Donald Trump’s return to the White House and the start of radical political reforms, backed by a significant part of the American elite, global politics has been left wondering about the future nature of relations between the United States and Europe. Since World War II, the European community has been closely bound to America through economic and political ties. Despite periodic disagreements over the Vietnam War or Soviet gas pipeline construction, these connections have strengthened over the decades, and just three years ago, it seemed that the transatlantic alliance was stronger than ever.

However, today, the President of the United States has raised many painful issues: from climate control to free trade, from relations with China to the conflict in Ukraine, from NATO funding to technology regulation. The intensity of the debate suggests that the nature of relations between the two sides of the Atlantic could change forever, and Europe may have to either build its future independently or seek a new patron-partner.

It should be noted that the European approach to relations with the United States is much better known to most countries in the world than the American approach. For the elites in Brussels, Washington is the "city upon a hill," a benchmark, a guiding star, and the foundation of foreign policy. European elites would like to preserve their ties with the U.S. in their current form. For a long time, both Democratic and Republican leadership in America sought to maintain its dominance in Europe as part of the broader U.S. global strategy. However, it is important to note that America, compared to Europe, is much more self-sufficient. Additionally, strong isolationist traditions have existed in the U.S. since the late 18th century. The issue of the cost and expenses of maintaining global leadership and funding allies has always been present in American political discourse. This bears some resemblance to the late Soviet Union, where, during perestroika, the democratic opposition strongly opposed providing aid to foreign countries and subsidizing republics.

It should also be noted that Europe is not the only area of strategic interaction for the United States. The U.S. is also a great Pacific power, and its complex relationship with Beijing has now come to the forefront for Americans. Equally important for the United States are its ties to the Middle East and Latin America. Europeans, however, find it difficult to understand that today they are not a priority partner but one of many. The onset of the conflict in Ukraine briefly brought the U.S. back into focus, but this proved to be a temporary phenomenon.

Faced with serious domestic political problems and challenges, Donald Trump and the American politicians and businessmen behind him decided to undertake a "diplomatic revolution" and reform the U.S.'s relations with the outside world. The Trump administration made it clear that it views the EU and NATO as less valuable than before. It was also emphasized that while the EU benefits from U.S. defence guarantees, it attempts to impose restrictions on the activities of American companies in the Old Continent. The new U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, stated that from now on, the United States would prioritize Asia, and Europe would have to take "responsibility for its own security."

Experts note that there are virtually no committed Atlantists in the new U.S. government, as there were in Donald Trump’s first administration. In the list of the first fifteen foreign calls made by the new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, only Poland was included from European countries, and he also called the NATO headquarters in Brussels. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the headquarters of the European Union were not included. American speeches at Davos and then in Munich showed that confrontation between the U.S. and the EU is likely inevitable. From now on, Washington intends to demand concessions from Brussels in all areas of politics and economics, while advocating for NATO reform and a reduction of the American presence in the European security system.

The European Union’s response to Washington’s new political direction was painful. One after another, European governments began to condemn Donald Trump and voice support for the outgoing president, Joe Biden. Anti-American sentiment began to rise in Europe, somewhat reminiscent of 2002-2003, when many countries, primarily France and Germany, expressed dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq.

Currently, politicians on both continents are exploring the possibility of reaching a "grand deal" between the United States and Europe to prevent conflict. For instance, the EU might make certain concessions, perhaps agreeing to purchase more liquefied natural gas from the U.S. and increase defence spending by buying more American weapons. Alternatively, Europeans might agree to some trade concessions in exchange for the U.S. maintaining its security commitments. However, the success of such negotiations now seems unlikely. The problem is that, due to the large number of unresolved issues in U.S.-Brussels relations, the lack of agreement on one point could lead to conflict over others. This would create an atmosphere of deep mistrust and a constant balancing act on the brink of open confrontation. A grand deal would require significant compromises, including from Donald Trump's administration. But for now, the new American president and his team have not shown any willingness to soften their stance.

The problem is that any agreement reached would be difficult to consider final. For instance, the European Union could change its technological standards to ease access for American products to European markets, but what would prevent Trump from demanding even more concessions on trade or energy tariffs, using security issues as leverage to pressure Brussels? Europeans also view Americans as partners who are unable to fulfill their own commitments. A few years ago, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada signed a trade agreement (USMCA), but that did not stop the new occupant of the White House from threatening to impose tariffs on these countries.

Finally, there are security-related issues between the sides. American President’s statements about the intention to annex Greenland raise concerns among Europeans: “If the United States seeks to seize the territory of an ally, it is hard to imagine that they would be willing to defend the territory of a partner.”

It should also be added that today the EU is not in the strongest position for negotiations. Germany and France are shaken by political and economic crises. Economic issues are also present in other member states of the union. Some countries, such as Hungary and Slovakia, hardly align their policies with Brussels. Almost all EU countries are facing energy security challenges. It is hard to imagine that the Donald Trump administration will not take advantage of this during negotiations.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that in the coming years, relations between the United States and the European Union will be marked by extreme turbulence, balancing on the brink of conflict. Donald Trump, in the early days of his presidency, made it clear that in his eyes, the European era of global politics is coming to an end.