Europe, US: A fractured relationship

The relationship between Europe and the United States traces its origins back to the battlefields of World War II. From those war-torn grounds emerged the foundations of geopolitical blocs. In the post-war world, the growing influence of the socialist bloc led by the Soviet Union heightened anxiety and sparked escalating tensions. A multi-dimensional competition took shape between the two blocs, each accusing the other of trying to destroy its internal unity. Just as American troops couldn’t establish a presence in Eastern European countries, Soviet tanks couldn’t roll into the Prussian fields due to the U.S.'s opposition. This attempt to separate the U.S. from Europe was once termed “decoupling.” What decades of Cold War hostility failed to accomplish, former U.S. President Donald Trump has moved to achieve within mere weeks.

Less than three months into Trump’s presidency, his administration began projecting a combative tone across the globe. Many argue that in its pursuit of economic self-interest, the U.S. has intentionally sought to weaken and divide Europe—and the European Union in particular. This message was received loud and clear by European leaders at the recent Munich Security Conference. While the Cold War officially ended three decades ago, today the world finds itself engulfed in fresh instability, fueled by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. The resulting geopolitical tension and economic uncertainty have reignited security concerns.

Even before the Cold War formally ended in the 1990s, Germany’s political and intellectual circles had begun taking initiatives in favor of peace and security. Back in 1963, during the height of Cold War tensions, politicians, researchers, and civil society figures convened in Munich for the first-ever security conference focused on international peace.

That said, the first decade of the conference did not draw much international attention, with participants limited to the United States and NATO member states. Over time, its scope expanded. What European leaders suspected was confirmed by the Signal app controversy: the Trump administration’s disregard for Europe is deep and growing, and the cracks in the transatlantic relationship are becoming structurally entrenched. There remains a glimmer of hope, however, that Europe can avoid a complete breakdown in its ties with the United States. European leaders still hope to prevent aggressive moves by the U.S.—whether that be an attempted annexation of Greenland, withdrawal of troops from NATO allies, or an all-out trade war.

At present, the top priority for European leaders is to ensure that, even if the U.S. abandons Ukraine, Europe can stand united to protect a free, independent, and democratic Ukraine. There’s no illusion among European policymakers: they hope to do so with U.S. cooperation—or at the very least, strategic approval from the Trump administration.

The Signal app leak was both expected and painful. It was expected because the language used in private chats by members of the U.S. national security team mirrors what officials have been saying publicly. This continuity—between private and public messaging—was evident in Senator J.D. Vance’s remarks at the Munich conference, in Steve Witkoff’s interview with Tucker Carlson, and in Trump’s persistent social media declarations.

There is a troubling consistency: Washington sees Europe as irrelevant, arrogant, and parasitic. More disturbingly, Trump’s advisors don’t merely consider Europe a declining ally—they seem intent on accelerating its downfall. Take the Houthi threat in the Red Sea, for instance. Regardless of individual opinions, the U.S. has made it clear that its strikes on Iran-backed militias are purely in its own national interest. But in private group chats, Vance and Pete Hegseth suggested that European nations benefit from U.S. actions—implying that such benefits are reason enough to halt those operations altogether. This logic casts European involvement in a negative light, to the point where the U.S. might actively oppose European security interests.

In this climate of contempt, Europe must act decisively in three key policy areas:

Trade: Trump is poised to announce new trade wars targeting several countries. He believes these nations have devastated the U.S. economy. No sentimentality or historic friendship will soften the blow of a trade war between the U.S. and the EU. It will be sharp and painful. Still, the EU—representing 27 governments—has a legal mandate to set a unified trade policy and holds considerable collective economic weight, which Washington cannot ignore. If conflict is inevitable, Europe must be prepared to hit back. If European countries stand firm, the U.S. will find it difficult to act as a bully. Trump has repeatedly insisted that Greenland will be his, and his administration’s provocations—such as Vance’s visit to the Arctic island and his harsh criticism of Denmark—indicate that Washington’s aggression will only intensify.

In this scenario, Europe’s leaders must speak out in support of Denmark, keeping in mind the Trump administration’s disdain for Europe. Weak responses will invite harsher American pressure.

Ukraine: Under the leadership of Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, several capable and willing European leaders are moving forward with a plan to support President Zelensky and Ukraine. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that Europe may have to pursue this plan not only without the U.S., but possibly in defiance of it. Europe can no longer rely on American military assistance. Since major European powers have already committed to increasing military and economic aid to Ukraine, as well as providing training and support for Ukrainian forces, they must press ahead with these plans, recognizing that the U.S. is no longer backing them. Intelligence-sharing and logistical cooperation should continue if possible—but if Washington refuses, Europe and Ukraine must find ways to go forward without U.S. support.

In fact, when it comes to sanctions on Russia, Europe may even have to work in opposition to the United States. So far, European governments have maintained a firm stance. The EU strongly rejected Russia’s demand to lift financial sanctions on agricultural and food sectors as a precondition for a ceasefire in the Black Sea. Europe must brace itself for U.S. pressure on this front as well.

Globally, right-wing politics is gaining ground—and Europe is no exception. Far-right parties are now thriving in countries like Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, and Hungary. In the 2024 European Parliament elections, conservative and far-right parties scored significant victories. American politicians—especially from the newly empowered Trump wing—are seizing this moment to further inflame Europe’s rightward drift. This strategy is driven by the growing influence of economic elites in U.S. politics. These American leaders care little for justice, peace, or harmony. Their agenda is powered by hostility and capitalist interests.

Friedrich Merz, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union and a potential future chancellor, stated in a circular email that the EU must now prepare for the worst. He warned that Trump’s return to the White House threatens Europe’s political order and that transatlantic relations may face severe fractures in the coming days.

Notably, experts suggest that U.S.-Bangladesh relations may remain unaffected by the new administration, since U.S. foreign policy rarely changes at its core. Although Trump’s policymaking is often erratic, democratic nations should not feel threatened—except perhaps on immigration and tariff issues, where both Asia and Europe may come under pressure.

Today, the term “the West” no longer holds clear meaning. Despite past tensions, the term once referred to a unified strategic force, committed to liberal democratic values. But now, with Europe, Russia, China, and the United States diverging in direction, the concept of “the West” has been hollowed out. What will replace it remains uncertain.

One possibility is violent conflict—large powers clashing with one another. Trump is increasingly seen as a nationalist and authoritarian president. His trade policies shift daily. He changes both tone and trajectory based on transactional calculations. Back in 2017, during a visit to Poland in his first term, Trump declared: “Let the world hear it—The West will never be broken. Our values will prevail.” Yet since then, Trump has distanced himself from conventional Republican thinking and has begun acting like an independent leader.

Europe's dilemma now is this: is Trump’s behavior a deliberate strategy, or is it the new face of American autocracy?

Raihan Ahmed Topadar is a researcher and columnist.