Over the past few hundred years, until the end of World War II, it is no exaggeration to say that Europe’s history is one of war. However, since the war ended, Europe has enjoyed relative peace, thanks to the protection of the United States-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization. European countries have also gradually moved toward a high degree of economic integration and prosperity, ultimately establishing the world’s largest and most market-integrated regional economic community, the European Union, in 1993.  

Undoubtedly, the US was indispensable in restoring Europe’s unity in the post-war era. Thus, if the US is no longer willing to maintain European unity, reduces its strategic commitment to Europe, takes actions that endanger European security and economic interests, and deliberately divides European countries, the continent will have to struggle to maintain unity.

It is true that, in recent decades, political and economic frictions and disputes have arisen between the US and European countries. Sometimes, the US would take unilateral actions to advance its interests and security, which would harm the security and interests of European countries, notably its momentous decision to expand NATO eastward.  

Nevertheless, Europe cannot afford to weaken or sever its relationship with the US due to its high dependence on it for its security. And it is precisely because of the US security umbrella that Europe has been able to focus on growing its economy and expanding welfare. The EU has gradually become a powerful competitor to the US in economy, trade, and finance. It has also gradually developed a set of values and beliefs that are at odds with the ideas underlying US domestic and foreign policies. Alas, to the chagrin of the Americans, it confers on Europe greater soft power than the US around the world.

Over time, these developments irrevocably deepen the contradictions within the Atlantic alliance. Still, during the Cold War, under the imperative to jointly combat and contain the Soviet Union and communism, these contradictions could only remain dormant and unattended.

Following the end of the Cold War, Russia was no longer a potent common threat to the US and Europe. In the post-Cold War unipolar world, the US emerged as the sole hegemony with global interests and ambitions. In contrast, Europe is increasingly parochial and primarily focused on its own development. The US, separately, is increasingly focusing on Asia, particularly the Asia-Pacific region, and curbing China’s rise has become the core of its strategy. The differences in strategic vision and priorities between them are becoming increasingly apparent, and frictions inevitably arise, albeit occasionally. For this reason, the US’ original focus on Europe as a strategic partner has waned, as has its determination and willingness to assume responsibility for Europe’s security and its commitment to maintaining the unity and reputation of the “West”. Europe is increasingly viewed as a free rider, taking advantage of American altruism, largesse, and generosity but showing only minimal gratitude.

The outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its adverse impact on US-European relations seem to confirm this contradiction between the two parties. After Donald Trump became US president again, he unilaterally negotiated with Russia on arrangements to end the war against opposition from dismayed European allies.

Then, the Trump administration launched sudden, massive, and destructive tariff and trade wars, targeting Europe and the world.

These were accompanied by the demand that European allies substantially increase defense spending, the implicit threat to withdraw from NATO, the US administration’s contempt for and hostility toward the EU, the purported desire to acquire Greenland and Canada, and the extolling of right-wing extremist forces in Europe.

As a result, US-European relations have undergone a sea change. For Europe, the US is no longer a trusted ally; in some respects, it has even become an adversary. The US’ continued erosion of its security pledges, and its economic war against Europe not only adversely affect the continent’s security and development but cast doubt on whether it can maintain unity to cope with the exacerbating external challenges and maintain internal solidarity.

Indeed, the US and Europe will likely maintain a certain degree of cooperation in the face of the perceived “threat” posed by Russia and China. Still, Europe’s trust and dependence on the US will continue to diminish. Now and in the future, European countries will actively adopt policies and measures to strengthen their unity and counter US attacks, particularly in the security and economic realms, as the US’ role in uniting the continent is expected to continue to shrink. Europe will also strive to strengthen its military forces due to the unreliability of the American nuclear umbrella.

However, in the absence of the US, it remains highly uncertain whether Europe can maintain or even strengthen its unity and achieve strategic autonomy. In the past, Europe could unite because its countries faced an existential threat from the Soviet Union. Today, despite the Ukraine crisis, not all European countries are apprehensive about Russia. Significantly, the conflict exposed Russia’s military weakness. Realistically, Russia’s strategic intentions and capabilities are most likely confined to incorporating some former Soviet republics into its sphere of influence. It is inconceivable that Russia has territorial ambitions on the territories of Western European countries. Concerns about the military threat from Russia are vastly overblown, most likely deliberately, and consequently, the Russian threat is hard to serve as the glue that can unite Europe.

The concerns of some European countries about China’s rise are even more far-fetched. They lambast China for siding with Russia in the conflict with Ukraine, providing economic support to Russia, and supplying equipment and resources to its military-industrial complex, thus posing a “security threat” to Europe. However, it is questionable whether this contrived and flimsy “Chinese threat” can become a force to unite Europe. On the contrary, Europe and China will have increasingly close economic and trade relations due to Trumpian protectionism, arbitrariness, and predatory behavior. Many European countries have become increasingly dependent on China’s market and investment, making it impossible for the continent to unite by labeling China as an implacable adversary.

Ironically, the US has become a force for uniting Europe. However, since Europe remains entirely dependent on the US regarding security, it is challenging for Europe to unite by treating it as an adversary. Furthermore, the former Soviet republics and “satellite states” are even less willing to be perceived as adversaries of the US. When dealing with the US, Britain, which always boasts of its “special relationship” with the US, will continue to side with Washington on most issues.

Over the years, on the other hand, factors undermining European unity have continued to grow.

First, European countries have different assessments of their security threats. Therefore, requiring all European countries to increase their military spending significantly is challenging, and it is not easy to fairly share the costs of enhancing European military power among nations. Second, given diverse security and economic interests, it is difficult for Europe to maintain a consistent stance toward the US, Russia, and China.

Third, the EU is facing numerous contradictions and frictions. It is challenging to address those issues through further integration, particularly in fiscal policy, immigration, economic policy, environmental protection, and the rule of law. The EU has already achieved a high level of financial integration but has not yet reached a consensus on fiscal policy, leaving a considerable distance to cover before it can become a politically cohesive entity capable of effective international maneuvering.

Fourth, right-wing euroskeptic forces within Europe and nationalism and populism in various countries are rising. Although this will not lead to the disintegration of the EU, it will sap European unity.

Fifth, as the development of the Ukraine crisis becomes manifestly unfavorable to Ukraine, the positions of European countries on Ukraine are becoming increasingly divergent. These differences will not disappear after the war ends and may even exacerbate.

Sixth, there is a lack of strong and farsighted leadership within Europe. Although France is willing to lead, its national strength falls short of expectations. Germany appears to have no will to assume leadership in uniting Europe. Besides, fear and suspicion of Germany are still palpable in some parts of the continent.

Although the US’ role in uniting Europe will continue to decline, Europe will still maintain a certain degree of unity even in the absence of the US. However, the degree of unity is expected to fall. Yet, European countries, particularly Germany and France, will inevitably seek alternative means to secure their interests, thereby reducing their dependence on the US. This will mainly be reflected in their changing relations with the US, Russia, and China. Although the EU as a collective entity will continue to function in diplomatic and trade affairs, I expect that individual European countries’ “strategic autonomy” and “independent” actions will increase.

The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant for the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.