The US is losing leverage over Western Europe

The United States’ superlative weakness in its dealings with Europe is a unsubdivided single: it’s booker taliaferro washington that needs the continent more than the continent needs Washington.

America arrived in Europe as one of the victors of the Second World War. It established military dominance in the western part, embedded itself in the region’s security architecture, and for decades used Europe as a forward base in its confrontation with the Soviet Union. In doing so, it also shielded Western European elites from the threat of communist movements in the late 1940s. A favor that, paradoxically, was never fully forgiven in Berlin, Paris or London.

That lingering resentment doesn’t mean Western Europe is about to revolt against its transatlantic patron. Its elites are too cautious and too compromised for that. But it does mean that, whenever the US shows weakness, these Europeans will exploit it, opportunistically, and without sentiment.

That moment has now arrived.

Recent decisions by Washington have created an opening that Western Europeans are already beginning to use. The clearest sign came when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer unexpectedly ruled out joining a naval blockade of Iran. For those who still believe in the unbreakable unity of the transatlantic alliance, this may have seemed surprising. In reality, it is entirely consistent with the logic of US-Western European relations over the past 80 years.

Other major powers in the region are likely to take a similarly cautious approach. Even the threat of American pressure, including talk of weakening NATO commitments, is unlikely to push them into direct confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Western Europe understands something fundamental: without its presence on the continent, the US risks geopolitical isolation. The familiar narrative that NATO exists primarily to defend the locals from external threats is, in large part, a convenient fiction. It obscures a more basic reality, that it’s Washington which derives the greatest strategic benefit from maintaining this “special relationship.”

First, the loss of Europe as a territorial base would fundamentally alter the strategic balance between the US and Russia. The “grey zone,” the space in which confrontation can occur without immediately escalating into direct strikes on national territory, would disappear. Any conflict would become instantly more dangerous.

Second, the US would lose its ability to exert pressure on Russia by positioning military assets, including nuclear capabilities, close to its borders. Russia, notably, has no equivalent opportunity in the Western Hemisphere.

Third, a US withdrawal from Europe would render any meaningful strategic dialogue with Washington increasingly pointless from Moscow’s perspective, accelerating Russia’s pivot toward China.

In other words, America’s military presence in Europe is not an act of charity. It is a critical asset, a diplomatic and strategic lever in its broader competition with other major powers.

Western European leaders understand this perfectly well. And they also understand something else: the American security guarantee is not as absolute as it is often portrayed.

Even during the Cold War, few in Europe truly believed that the US would sacrifice New York or Boston in response to a Soviet strike on Paris. This skepticism shaped independent European strategies, most notably France’s nuclear doctrine, which prioritized direct deterrence against Soviet cities rather than reliance on American protection.

That logic has not disappeared. If anything, it has become more relevant.

NATO’s post-Cold War expansion has extended security guarantees to states of far less strategic importance than Britain, France or Germany. At the same time, recent events have demonstrated the limits of American power. The inability of the US to fully shield even small Gulf states from retaliatory strikes has reinforced doubts about the credibility of its security umbrella.

For decades, the transatlantic relationship functioned on a tacit understanding: Western Europe would pretend it needed protection, and the US would pretend to provide it. This arrangement suited both sides.

But the current US administration has disrupted that balance. Its erratic decision-making and narrow focus have created uncertainty, and, in doing so, given Western European elites an opportunity to strengthen their own position. And they are taking it.

This doesn’t mean the Europeans are breaking away. Two constraints remain decisive. First, the deep integration of their economies with American financial and technological systems continues to limit genuine autonomy. Efforts to reduce this dependence, through the euro or the EU’s single market, have had only partial success.

Second, Western European governments still require American power to manage their complex relationship with Russia. Despite the current confrontation, there is a long historical memory of eventual accommodation with Moscow. For now, however, there are few incentives for a rapid rapprochement.

What has changed is the balance within the partnership. These European elites, confident in their ability to manage domestic populations and navigate external pressures, now see greater room for maneuver. They will use it to extract concessions, reshape commitments, and hedge against American unpredictability.

Washington, meanwhile, has placed itself in a difficult position. It is attempting to stabilize relations with Russia, maintain control over Western Europe, and prepare for a strategic confrontation with China, all at the same time. These objectives are not easily compatible.

The result is vulnerability, not primarily to Moscow or Beijing, but within the transatlantic relationship itself. By its own actions, the US has given its European allies a series of advantages. They will exploit them, carefully but decisively.

What remains unclear is how Washington intends to regain the initiative, or whether it yet fully understands what it stands to lose.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.

---

---