February 2025 looks like being a defining month for European security and the eight-decade transatlantic alliance. With European leaders unsure whether the Trump administration identifies more with Putin’s Russia than EU democracies, Ian Davis proposes eight ways in which European security might be rethought and reclaimed, within NATO or beyond it.
Newly re-elected US President Donald Trump has adopted a coercive and transactional (some would say anti-transactional) approach to foreign policy. In a chaotic first four weeks he has frozen most US aid, albeit with exemptions for life-saving humanitarian assistance, started a trade war with China (as well as with neighbours Canada and Mexico), imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), and threatened Colombia with sanctions when it refused to clear US military planes carrying expelled migrants. He has also proposed either buying or taking over Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal and Gaza Strip. These threats seem part of a broader strategy of sowing chaos and confusion to keep both his opponents and purported allies—domestic and international—off guard.
Trump’s second term looks like representing a genuine break with the democratic history of the United States and in its last 84 years of relations with allies. As the Guardian writes, “durable alignment based on mutual interest, legally binding treaty obligations and democratic values is a model that no longer has currency in the White House”. Further, the US vice-president’s speech at the Munich Security Conference exposed the deep ideological fissures that now exist within the transatlantic alliance.
Given that Washington has traditionally been the ‘first among equals’ in NATO, this presents a significant challenge to the other 31 member states. Do they remain committed to the ‘rules-based international order’, in as much as it previously existed, or will they and NATO need to adjust to a more transactional and nationalistic world? There is no playbook to guide them in handling this situation, but the contours of such a strategy need to be urgently discussed. This briefing discusses eight potential key steps in such a playbook. The eighth, in the extremis of a direct US military threat, proposes the mothballing of NATO and the creation of a European Treaty Organisation (ETO).
1. Undertake diplomacy and dialogue
The NATO member states and the Secretary General should maintain open channels of communication with the US President and his administration, including direct meetings, phone calls and regular diplomatic exchanges. The goal should be to understand the President’s dynamic conflicting priorities, clarify misunderstandings and attempt to persuade him to adopt a more collaborative approach. As Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to Washington has said, Donald Trump’s “strong and clear mandate for change” has to be respected, but alternative views can be made known “privately and directly” to the US president.
But the private actions of the so-called Trump whisperers are unlikely to be enough in and of themselves, especially since many will be seeking to curry favour on narrow nationalist terms rather than representing a common European agenda. Where appropriate, such as the threats to annex Greenland, diplomatic pushback should be coordinated. Presenting a united front can amplify the message and exert greater influence on President Trump. This could involve issuing joint statements, sending high-level delegations and coordinating lobbying efforts in Washington.
2. Strengthen European NATO’s capabilities and resilience
European member states should explore ways to enhance strategic autonomy, particularly in areas like military procurement, technology and intelligence sharing. This would allow them to make more independent decisions about their security priorities. They should also rethink the 2% of GDP defence spending minimum commitment. Not in the terms of increasing it further, which buys into dysfunctional ideas about ‘strong security’, when what is needed are transformational security agendas based on common and human security thinking.
They should be investing in measures to enhance resilience against hybrid threats, such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and economic coercion, thereby reducing Europe’s vulnerability to external pressure. They should also explore new forms of cooperation and ways to measure burden-sharing to ensure a balanced and sustainable security strategy.
3. Consider economic and political countermeasures
If the US engages in coercive economic actions against other NATO member states, those members should consider using their own economic leverage to protect their interests. This could involve imposing tariffs, boycotts, suspending military contracts with US companies or other measures to deter the US from pursuing policies that harm their economies. The EU already has an anti-coercion instrument, known as the ‘EU bazooka’, developed during Trump’s first presidency and since used as a deterrent against China. Plans are in place to use it in a potential dispute with Washington to impose restrictions on trade in services against American Big Tech companies. In addition to Big Tech and Trump himself, businesses closely linked to Trump and his closest allies should be targeted. Like Moscow, Washington needs to be seen as the home of crony capitalism and treated as such.
The US aerospace and defence industry is particularly vulnerable to countermeasures. The sector generates over a trillion dollars in economic activity annually, supporting over 2.5 million US jobs. In the 12 months through June 2023, European countries spent over $52 billion on weapons provided by US defence companies. If Europe were to suspend or threaten to cancel all military contracts with US companies, the economic impact would be significant. Trump would probably respond to any ban with countermeasures, like stopping subcontracting on F-35 combat aircraft production and withdrawing maintenance support with implications for European jobs and for operational availability within European militaries. The Five Eyes intelligence sharing might come under threat as well. However, the bigger economic hit would be felt on the US side of the Atlantic.
Political countermeasures would include public condemnation of any actions by the US that violate international law, undermine democratic values and essential international institutions or those that threaten the alliance. Selective cooperation with the United States would continue where interests align, while maintaining a firm stance on areas where disagreements exist. This would allow Europeans to advance their own agendas without being drawn into policies they oppose.
4. Maintain internal cohesion and engage the public
It will be important for the other NATO member states to demonstrate solidarity with each other, particularly those which are most vulnerable to US pressure. A series of elections this year, including in Germany, Romania, Poland, Norway and the Czech Republic, may complicate the task of preserving consensus, especially if Euro-sceptic, hard-right parties gain ground. To help to build consensus and coordinate responses, open and frank discussions will be needed about core concerns and priorities. The recent “triple first” talks in Brussels and the mini-summit in Paris involving EU and UK leaders and the NATO Secretary General are a step in the right direction.
But these typically closed talks involved very little public engagement. Public diplomacy and transparency will also be key to explain NATO’s importance, the value of the transatlantic alliance and the necessity for countermeasures. This will help to build public support for the alliance (and/or for European strategic autonomy) and counter any negative narratives that may be promoted by the US or other actors.
5. Support key international institutions and organisations
The roles of other international institutions and agreements that support global stability and security should be supported and, where possible, reinforced. The UN, World Health Organization, ICC, Paris Agreement, among others, have already been targeted by the Trump administration. These are crucial parts of the so-called ‘rules-based international order’ that emerged with the United Nations at the end of World War II. For all its failings and duplicities, this global order promoted cooperation rather than violence as the accepted starting point of international relations.
NATO member states should vigorously oppose any attempts to undermine these universal norms and institutions. For example, the majority of the 125 state members of the ICC immediately spoke out against Trump’s sanctions, including France, Germany and the UK, describing their support for the court’s independence, impartiality and integrity as “unwavering”. Engagement with other major powers and regional actors, including China, also needs to be strengthened to ensure a balanced and diversified approach to global security.
6. Engage with Russia to end the war in Ukraine
Against the backdrop of great power rivalry and the climate crisis, Europe needs a re-set in its relationship with Russia. It is urgent to find a way of living together with Moscow and to do so, Europe finally needs to take Russia and Russian concerns seriously. This entails moving beyond the stark fear of the Cold War and more recently, apportioning all the blame for the war in Ukraine and much else besides onto President Putin. Russia, for example, is widely blamed for a spate of incidents involving damage to Baltic undersea cables, yet multiple intelligence sources point away from Russian sabotage in many of these cases.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is reaching the end of its third year, at an estimated cost of a million people, killed or wounded. Even if the war ends with Russian territorial gains, it is a pyrrhic victory with staggering economic and human costs to both sides. In the end, the only durable guarantee of peace in Ukraine and between Russia and the rest of Europe will be a new security architecture that over time reduces fear and distrust between them.
7. Stand with Americans who dream of a better future
America is not synonymous with President Trump, the Republican party or the Big Tech oligarchs. Rather, the United States is embodied by its 335 million citizens, most of whom (including many of the 77 million who voted for Trump) just want to live in a civilised world, and in a country where freedom and human rights are respected and upheld by credible independent institutions, both domestic and international. While formal power is in the hands of Trump and his inner circle, Americans remain ready to assert their rights and constitutional traditions. Domestic democratic opposition to Trump is growing, despite the likelihood of coming under attack over the next four years. NATO member states should make it clear that they stand with this segment of Americans that still dreams of a better America and its place in the world.
8. Take the long view, but be prepared to move beyond NATO
These proposed responses should be framed with a long-term perspective, recognizing that the US presidency is temporary. The goal should be to preserve the alliance and maintain its core principles, even if relations with the current US administration are strained. The responses must balance the need to protect the interests of individual NATO member states with the need to maintain the strength and cohesion of the alliance. The responses should be flexible and adaptable, recognizing that the situation is likely to evolve over time and adjustments may be needed to the strategies.
However, an actual, as opposed to a threatened, act of aggression by the United States against a fellow NATO member state should be a firm red line. NATO officials have reportedly already discussed sending troops to Greenland in the face of Trump’s threat, backed by Germany and France, but two further urgent measures should also be contemplated if this line were to be crossed.
First, a court to prosecute President Trump and the other American leaders who orchestrate the act of aggression should be established. Such an ad hoc tribunal—similar to the proposed Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine—would be the best available option to try a crime of aggression, for which the ICC lacks jurisdiction.
Second, the European NATO member states and Canada should collectively withdraw from NATO—pre-empting any US withdrawal—and immediately form a European Treaty Organization (ETO), perhaps with Canada as an Associate Member. An open door to future Russian membership would depend on the outcome in Ukraine and Moscow’s willingness to accept that European stability and security is centred on the basis of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. The European-based organs, staff, activities and infrastructure of NATO would become part of the ETO and all US bases within Europe would be given notice to close.
Trump might retaliate to an ETO by offering bilateral security deals to right/populist governments in Europe, and those in Eastern Europe that feel most threatened by Russia, with support for increased military spending and even major subcontracting for weapon systems. The Franco-German core and the position of Poland and the UK will be crucial in maintaining the idea of collective European security.
As regards the UK, the question arises as to whether Westminster can be weaned off its so-called ‘special relationship’ with Washington. The signs so far are not good. The UK, for example, just joined the US in refusing to sign an international agreement on artificial intelligence at a global summit in Paris, having previously been a champion of the idea of AI safety.
Much has been written about the inability of Europe to mount a defence of the continent without the United States, but much of this literature is based on outdated or misplaced notions of what security really is, how it can be achieved and on an inflated Russian threat and, more significantly, a neglected US threat. Creation of an ETO—assuming European differences can be overcome— would allow a reset and a focus on human security, resilience and non-offensive defence, that is forms of defence that rule out the option of armed attack against other states.
Conclusion: From resilience to radical renewal
In conclusion, European capitals need to react as they should have done during the first Trump presidency: with far greater urgency in standing together to protect the continent’s interests. It demands strong diplomacy, a commitment to collective security, and a willingness to stand up for shared values. Greg Grandin, writing in the New York Times, outlined the dangers of Trump treating international politics as if it were a game of Risk: “the powerful do what they will; the weak suffer what they must”.
Europe can no longer rely on the traditional transatlantic partnership (or that it will return any time soon) and must prepare for a new geopolitical reality: a new global divide between rules and brute force. It must adopt a more assertive and independent approach on the global stage, advancing its leadership role in key areas such as security, climate action, development policy and multilateral cooperation. The continent badly needs a radical renewal and with the United States effectively out of the game there is now an opportunity to chart a new, more genuinely rules-based path.
Dr Ian Davis is the founder of NATO Watch, a website platform to promote a more transparent and accountable NATO. He is also the Executive Editor of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook and an Associate Senior Fellow within Conflict and Peace at SIPRI. Prior to joining SIPRI, he held several senior positions, including Executive Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), 2001-2007.
The views and opinions expressed in posts on the Rethinking Security blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the network and its broader membership.
Image Credit: No 10 Downing Street, via Flickr. Prime Minister Keir Starmer talks with President Emmanuel Macron, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy while hosting the European Political Community (EPC) at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, July 2024.
Nobody Cares