Time for Europe to move beyond political theater and make strategic choices consistent with its long-term interests

Following the United States’ recent threats concerning Greenland and the speeches at Davos, the opportunity for Europe to realign itself in the broader multipolar world has never been greater. The question is whether Europe’s leaders are up to the task.

From mainstream news coverage and the statements of European leaders, it appears that the transatlantic relationship is in unprecedented trouble. French President Emmanuel Macron noted that “we do prefer respect to bullies … and we do prefer rule of law to brutality”. Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson dismissed US President Donald Trump’s Davos comments as “unjust in every conceivable way”, and several European leaders issued a joint communiqué stating that “it is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland”. This reflects growing frustration in Europe over aggressive US rhetoric, in addition to long-standing frictions related to trade, tariffs and industrial policies that increasingly place European economic interests at a disadvantage.

Nevertheless, it is essential to critically examine how deep this crisis truly runs.

First, the leadership of the European Union remains committed to US guidance, as demonstrated by its recent statements. Both European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President Kaja Kallas have defended Europe’s alignment with the US by citing Russia and China. Von der Leyen noted that a trade war between the EU and the US would be “celebrated” by Russia and China, while Kallas argued that US tariffs punishing European states would be a “field day for Russia and China”. This inversion — treating the US, which openly considers territorial expansion at the expense of an EU member state, as a partner in containing other powers, which have never even once threatened the EU’s sovereignty — reveals Europe’s continued subordination to US strategic narratives.

Similarly, while European leaders publicly express outrage at US expansionist tendencies, they readily yield to pressure from senior US defence officials, by accepting, for example, to raise military expenditures to 5 percent of GDP, as concluded at the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, and not one of them has questioned or called for the closing of the roughly 80 US military bases still stationed across Europe.

Even when examining recent statements, one recurring concern among European leaders was the US claim that Europeans had not contributed enough to the illegal US-led intervention in Afghanistan, which had Denmark, Germany, Poland, Italy and the United Kingdom making the strong case that they had indeed joined this disastrous campaign — to the detriment of Afghans and European taxpayers alike.

However, comments by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in which he admitted that the “international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, and that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically”, have been interpreted as a final wake-up call for Europe to change course and work toward a fairer and more inclusive global order, with greater emphasis on dialogue and cooperation with the Global South.

Unfortunately, this appears to be little more than wishful thinking. Carney did not apologize for “following the rituals”, that is, participating in the destruction of sovereign Global South nations through illegal wars, or for “avoiding calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality”, actions that consistently empowered the aggressors and undermined international law. It is only when the consequences of imperial expansionism threaten European countries themselves that European leaders have expressed concern. When the US refocuses on bringing violence to the Global South, it is likely that many Western leaders will quickly revert to their traditional complicity. Macron’s messages to Trump, in which he stated that “we are totally in line on Syria. We can do great things on Iran”, offer a telling illustration of this enduring dynamic.

The main argument used to justify Europe’s subservience and acceptance of repeated humiliation by the US is that, while unfortunate, Europe supposedly needs the US for its security and must therefore “bite the bullet”. This reasoning could not be more untenable. Europe has no genuine enemies; EU-China relations have for a long time been stable and cooperative; and neither Iran nor the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has any intention of harming Europe, whether militarily, economically or strategically. Contrary to mainstream narratives, Europe’s current insecurity is not mainly the product of external hostility, but of domestic political choices and strategic alignments that have narrowed diplomatic space and entrenched confrontation in service of US grand strategy.

Moreover, the facts are clear: any real threat to Europe would not come from Russia, China, Iran or the DPRK. According to the US Congressional Research Service, the US launched at least 251 military interventions between 1991 and 2022. Meanwhile, the Costs of War project at Brown University estimates that the US post-Sept 11 wars have resulted in nearly 5 million direct and indirect deaths and the displacement of around 38 million people. Recent US actions, therefore, should not be viewed as deviations from the norm, but as a continuation of long-standing strategic agendas, albeit pursued today with diminishing concern for image management or diplomatic decorum.

However, all these facts about continued US violence in the Global South have fallen and continue to fall on deaf ears in Europe, which only now seems to have rediscovered the value of international law as the US targets Greenland. Ironically, it was Europe itself that eroded international law over the past decades, replacing it with the so-called rules-based international order, which legitimized sanctions and military interventions against sovereign Global South countries, despite being illegal under international law.

In contrast, China’s engagement with the Global South has largely emphasized development cooperation, infrastructure connectivity and non-interference. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, South-South cooperation frameworks and multilateral development financing, China has sought to address structural development gaps rather than impose political or military solutions.

In this context, the US’ threats against Europe could not strike a more deserving target, as noted by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. This is especially true for Denmark, which has consistently gone above and beyond in serving US interests, including participation in the US aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, alignment with US sanctions and restrictions on Chinese tech companies, and coordination with the US National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on European allies, including Germany, France, Sweden and Norway, for at least a decade.

Taken together, these developments point to a defining moment for Europe. As successive US actions expose the limits of long-standing transatlantic assumptions, and as European countries simultaneously deepen engagement with China and other partners through high-level dialogue and visits, the outlines of an alternative future are becoming visible.

The question is therefore no longer whether Europe should diversify its external relations or reconsider aspects of its strategic posture, but whether it can move beyond declaratory statements toward the development of a coherent and genuinely independent foreign and security policy. In an increasingly fragmented and multipolar world, postponing this adjustment carries growing costs.

The author is an advisor at the European Parliament.

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.