Lord Kim Darroch is a former British diplomat, having served as the UK’s National Security Advisor, Ambassador to the United States, and Permanent Representative to the European Union.

The coming decade will test Europe in ways not seen since the postwar era. A series of converging military, political, economic, and societal crises has exposed the limits of the continent’s strategic posture and raised fundamental questions about its global standing and future direction.

Having served as the UK’s Ambassador to the United States during the first Trump administration, I witnessed firsthand how quickly longstanding expectations about alliance commitment and shared values can unravel. The war in Ukraine has shattered assumptions about security in Europe’s neighborhood. Conflict in the Middle East continues to undermine regional stability. Simultaneously, the resurgence of populist politics—combined with economic divergence and technological competition with China—poses serious threats to the cohesion and strategic focus of Europe’s ambitions. Europe stands at a tipping point and must determine whether it is prepared to act with the unity and resolve of a serious geopolitical power or settle for a shrinking voice on the world stage.

Migration remains one of the EU’s most divisive issues | Source: Guliver Image

Strategic uncertainty has become the new norm. What began as a conflict driven by conditions on the ground is now shaped by the geopolitical interests of external actors, as the West’s initial momentum fades. The once-strong Western consensus on supporting Ukraine is showing signs of strain, as resources come under pressure and political support—particularly in Washington—is becoming more nuanced and conditional. The second Trump presidency has returned with surprising force, coupled with a willingness to disrupt alliances and a potentially fundamental shift in America’s global posture. This U.S. foreign policy favors bilateral bargaining over alliance solidarity, transactional gains over enduring commitments, and a retreat from multilateral frameworks—all repackaged as strategic pragmatism. Within this context, Ukraine risks becoming not the recipient of support, but the object of negotiation. Europe can no longer rely on transatlantic consensus to hold, nor on American guarantees to endure without challenge. The illusion of permanence in the postwar order has faded, and with it the assumption that Ukraine’s struggle would remain a shared Western priority. If the United States chooses to step back, the burden of responsibility will fall heavily on European shoulders.

Meanwhile, the Middle East remains a source of chronic instability, with the war in Gaza deepening regional tensions and testing what remains of Western diplomatic influence in the region. With American influence waning and European leverage limited, the risk of broader escalation remains high. There is little appetite for serious engagement, yet the strategic costs of passivity—from damaged relations with the Arab world to economic disruption and security risks—are mounting. Europe can no longer afford to look away; it must develop a clear, coordinated strategy that reflects both its interests and its responsibilities in the region.

All of this unfolds against the backdrop of a potentially transformational moment in transatlantic relations. Trump’s first term prompted allies to recalibrate. But his second term, unshackled from internal resistance, is already causing deeper ruptures. Meanwhile, Europe’s readiness is lagging far behind expectations. Strengthening European sovereignty is more important than ever before—not by breaking from Washington, but by building the ability to respond independently when necessary. This is not a call for isolation or European exceptionalism. It’s a call for seriousness. The age of soft power and quiet diplomacy is giving way to a harder-edged world, where strength, clarity, and strategic purpose will define relevance. Europe has the tools. What remains in question is whether it has the will, as well as the unity, to use them.

 

Strategic Flashpoints

The war in Ukraine became the most consequential test of Europe’s strategic credibility since the end of the Cold War. What began with an extraordinary display of unity and resolve—with sanctions unprecedented in scale, coordinated military aid, and a clear message that aggression would not stand—has, over time, revealed the fragility of Western solidarity when faced with a lengthy conflict and shifting domestic priorities. As the frontline hardened and a quick victory gave way to a grinding stalemate, the true contest became one of endurance, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is betting heavily that his regime will prove more resilient than Europe’s resolve.

Russia’s strategy is not subtle, but its logic makes it effective. Moscow sees the fractures in NATO’s consensus, the competing crises pulling Washington’s attention elsewhere, and the temptation among European capitals to talk about compromise rather than victory. In that calculation, Western democracies struggle to sustain unpopular wars once the initial sense of moral clarity fades. For Europe, the risk is clear: if support for Ukraine weakens, the conflict will not freeze at today’s frontlines but will encourage the Kremlin to push further, directly challenging Europe’s security and credibility.

Despite the United States distancing itself from the transatlantic alliance, it continues to support Ukraine with military aid, playing a key role in limiting Russian gains on the battlefield. In July 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a renewed U.S. commitment: new shipments of U.S.-financed Patriot missile defense systems and additional weapons from third countries would reach Ukraine within days. Although these deliveries are more modest than what Kyiv had hoped for, Washington has pledged to help secure further supplies when peace talks with Moscow stall, and high-level meetings may soon lift the remaining pause on larger shipments. Meanwhile, Europe has stepped forward with significant new efforts of its own, pledging €24 billion in military aid to Ukraine in April 2025—thus recognizing that responsibility can no longer be outsourced.

Even with renewed American support, the lesson for Europe is clear: it can no longer afford to treat the U.S. as a consistent supporter. If Washington’s resolve wavers again, or becomes a bargaining chip in wider geopolitical deals, Europe must be ready to act on its own. This is why the question of frozen Russian assets is far more than a legal or technical issue; it is a test of Europe’s strategic seriousness. Seizing the funds outright might satisfy immediate demands for retribution but would carry legal risks and hand the Kremlin a propaganda weapon. A better course is to lend these assets to Ukraine through a transparent, rules-based framework, with repayment tied to any eventual settlement and Russia’s long-term obligations. This would help keep Kyiv armed and its economy afloat, while preserving Europe’s credibility as a defender of the law rather than an opportunist. Russia’s economic strain is real: annual inflation above 9 percent, investor pullouts, and the relentless cost of war are slowly grinding Moscow’s resources down. However, delays or indecision could prove just as costly for Europe. A Ukraine that remains well-armed, financially stable, and firmly linked to Europe can force the Kremlin to make concessions. Europe’s response will decide whether it is capable and serious about its own security, or whether Putin’s bet—that time will break the West first—will be proven right.

The war in Ukraine is a testament to the stakes of security close to home, while the war in the Middle East underlines that instability beyond Europe’s borders carries serious consequences when neglected. The region has long been a source of volatility, but today it starkly highlights the limits of Europe’s diplomatic influence at a time when credible engagement is needed. With U.S. leadership becoming increasingly selective and regional actors driven by deeply rooted rivalries, the European Union has struggled to assert meaningful influence or drive de-escalation. European engagement is defined by internal divisions and hesitant action, leading to persistent uncertainty over the EU’s geopolitical relevance. Its approach remains alarmingly disjointed and reactive, forcing major EU powers to take matters into their own hands. France, Germany, and the UK have pursued their own diplomatic initiatives, holding talks with regional actors—including the Gulf states, Israel, and Egypt—in attempts to prevent any further escalation of the conflict. The initiatives have ranged from propositions for ceasefire to increasing humanitarian aid, while UK officials maintain collaboration with Washington, engaging in dialogue with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to achieve regional security in the Middle East. However, these diplomatic pushes have yet to deliver meaningful breakthroughs, nor have they yielded a unified strategy that goes beyond rhetorical statements.

The picture is no clearer when it comes to practical measures. On the diplomatic and sanctions front, EU unity has proved fleeting. Several EU member states—such as Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, and Sweden—have called for suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and pressed for targeted sanctions in response to alleged violations of international law. However, following the assessment coordinated by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, and a detailed review of ten possible options, European foreign ministers decided not to take any bloc-wide actions. Instead, the EU resolved to continue monitoring Israel’s commitments and left all measures open for possible reconsideration, reaching no consensus to proceed with sanctions. This outcome is a clear reflection of the deep fractures within the EU—and the Union’s failure to overcome them—at a time when unity would matter most, thus undermining its credibility to act on global affairs.

However, we have reached a point where looking away is no longer an option for Europe. Whether in Ukraine or Gaza, prolonged conflict risks destabilizing neighbors, deepening animosities, and straining Europe’s relationship with key partners. Each new escalation causes impacts that reach Europe: from renewed migration flows and radicalization to disrupted energy supplies, trade routes, and economic stability. These pressures test the resilience of European countries and fuel populism that weakens the continent’s unity and strategic focus. Doing nothing does not mean Europe is neutral. Any disengagement only increases the costs that Europe will inevitably pay at home.

 

No More Outsourcing Security 

The war in Ukraine has laid bare both the strength and the fragility of Europe’s transatlantic relations, exposing the extent of Europe’s dependence on Washington’s security guarantees. The current U.S. administration is unequivocally prioritizing its domestic and China-focused interests. Demands for greater financial and strategic burden-sharing are no longer polite diplomatic suggestions; they are direct conditions. Consequently, Europe must learn to fend for itself—scrambling to keep up or stand on its own two feet—and accept that its security cannot rest on U.S. guarantees alone, especially when those can be withdrawn or used as strategic leverage.

Despite renewed military assistance for Ukraine, the reality remains that American support has become increasingly conditional. High-level talks may hopefully unlock further aid if peace negotiations stall, but the message is clear: Europe cannot take American backing for granted. What was once an unspoken understanding has become an explicit test of Europe’s capacity to step up. This shift has sharpened the debate about Europe’s long-discussed but not yet realized “strategic autonomy.” The phrase has transformed into more than a mere slogan; it has become a necessity for Europe’s international standing. The months ahead will test whether Europe can translate this wake-up call into meaningful unity and sustainable self-reliance.

The challenge, however, does not stop at defense. Washington’s shift toward protectionism and trade wars under President Trump is a stark reminder that economic dependence carries its own risks. Washington’s impulse to impose tariffs and favor bilateral deals has hit both the EU and the UK, putting them in a position where they face rising costs and political pressure to retaliate. President Trump’s threat to impose a 30 percent tariff on goods imported from the European Union starting August 1st served as a reminder that economic dependence comes with its own risks. Yet days before the deadline, the U.S. and EU agreed that European goods would face 15 percent tariffs—including cars. Under the deal—which requires approval by all 27 EU members—the trading bloc will charge American firms 0 percent duty on certain products. While London too must navigate similar pressures, it has so far held back from immediate retaliation, aiming to pursue pragmatic negotiations with Washington rather than escalation. Under a new arrangement, the 10 percent tariffs now apply to a range of UK export to the United States, replacing the previous 25 percent levy on the automotive sector. Together these tensions leave Europe squeezed between an unpredictable ally and an assertive China, forced to navigate supply chains and markets without the leverage it once assumed was guaranteed by transatlantic consensus.

For Europe, this is not a call to abandon the transatlantic alliance. However, it is a call for the EU to work closer with the UK, presenting a more united European front to build the capacity to stand on its own feet when Washington chooses not to lead (or chooses to lead, but only on its own terms). This means higher, better coordinated defense spending, serious investment in joint capabilities, and closer cooperation among European armed forces. It also means diversifying trade partnerships, reducing critical dependencies not only on Russia but on the U.S. as well, and shaping global economic rules in Europe’s interests. If the past few years have shown how quickly familiar assumptions can break down, the next decade must prove that Europe is better prepared. When the U.S. chooses to step back, Europe must be ready to act: not by default, but because it has built the capacity to do so.

 

Strategic Dependence between Washinton and Beijing

Europe’s position between the United States and China has never looked more delicate than it does today. For years, Europe maintained a complex but strong economic relationship with Beijing—one of its largest trading partners and a critical source for the growth of key industries. However, the more protectionist and nationalist stance of the U.S. is forcing Europe into a complex dilemma: to rethink its approach. Washington’s push for domestic reindustrialization and its intensifying rivalry with Beijing have left Europe facing a less predictable transatlantic partner at a time when it needs reliable allies the most. Meanwhile, China’s expanding dominance in critical sectors—from green technology to advanced manufacturing—continues to put pressure on Europe’s longstanding technological and industrial edge. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, European direct investment in China rose sharply, yet European businesses report that the environment is increasingly politicized and unpredictable. Barriers to market access, selective regulatory enforcement, and national security requirements continue to pose systemic challenges. China’s heavy industrial subsidies and persistent overcapacity distort competition and threaten Europe’s domestic producers just as they seek to recover competitiveness at home.

The 25th EU-China Summit, held on July 24th and 25th, marking the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties, came at a delicate moment. Recent signs of diplomatic engagement—including China’s decision to lift sanctions on EU lawmakers and high-level meetings in Brussels—show that Beijing is keen to reset ties as the U.S. hardens its stance. But these gestures do little to resolve the core issues: trade imbalances, fair competition, and Beijing’s ambiguous posture on global security questions like Ukraine.

Europe’s strategy remains “de-risking, not decoupling”—an approach that recognizes full economic separation is neither practical nor desirable. Instead, Europe must reduce critical dependencies, protect supply chains, and assert its own standards for fair competition. This is precisely why EU-China diplomatic summits and their implications serve as a major test: whether Europe can manage its relationship with China with firm principles, or whether short-term economic interests will again outweigh strategic caution. In a world of great power rivalry, Europe must balance engagement with realism and prove that it can defend its own interests even when its two biggest partners pull it in opposing directions.

 

The Rise of Populism in the European Political Landscape

The continued rise of populist movements is one of the most consequential shifts in the political climate—not only in the Trump-driven populism reshaping U.S. policies, but also in Europe’s internal politics. It is not a matter of clever rhetoric or manufactured outrage; it is rooted in the failure of mainstream parties to deliver credible, practical solutions to issues that shape daily life, from secure borders to fair economic opportunity. Where the political center struggles to listen and adapt, anti-establishment parties seize the vacuum with promises of clear answers, however oversimplified.

Hungary remains Europe’s most prominent example of sustained populist rule, promoting an “illiberal democracy,” resisting migration, and presenting itself as a defender of Christian values against perceived foreign threats. The government has repeatedly clashed with Brussels over rule-of-law norms, directly challenging the EU’s commitment to democratic principles and defining a model that other far-right movements increasingly seek to imitate. Recent national elections highlight just how deeply this momentum is reshaping Europe. In Poland, the presidency has returned to the conservative right under a Law and Justice (PiS)-backed candidate, reasserting nationalist themes in domestic and EU debates. In Slovakia, the resurgence of Robert Fico’s Smer-SD party has deepened polarization, straining democratic checks and balances.

In Western Europe, parties like France’s National Rally and Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) are achieving record levels of support, bringing previously marginal ideas into the mainstream and pressuring established parties to harden their positions. These gains signal a broader trend that poses serious threats to Europe’s democratic institutions—deepening polarization and weakening the collective resolve Europe needs to present a united bloc against external threats and defend its core values.

Migration remains the issue that most directly fuels this dynamic. Continued instability—from war-induced to economically fueled and climate-driven migration—has increased pressures that are repeatedly weaponized to raise voters’ concerns about security, identity, and cohesion. Populist movements understand this well and deploy it effectively. The result is a debate that too often drifts into polarization and blame, rather than practical solutions. For Europe, the stakes go well beyond domestic politics. Populism has begun to shape policymaking at both national and EU levels, constraining the consensus needed for effective foreign and security policy, including the resolve to sustain support for Ukraine. Disunity strains the broader project of European integration, which depends on trust in democratic institutions to function.

The deeper problem, of which populism is a symptom, is not something that will be solved by lecturing voters. It requires competence in policy delivery and honesty in political debate. Europe must demonstrate that it can manage migration flows, protect borders, and respond to legitimate concerns without sacrificing its democratic values. Failure to do so risks handing the agenda—and Europe’s future unity—to those who take advantage of divided times.

 

No Room for Strategic Hesitation 

Europe’s assumption of stability at its borders, Western economic and technological dominance, and reliable transatlantic backing no longer holds. The world has shifted into a more volatile era, shaped by geopolitical tensions, renewed wars of aggression, and the questioning of multilateral rules once taken for granted. Today’s environment rewards nations that act quickly, invest strategically, and build resilient alliances.

For too long, Europe leaned on traditional instruments: economic weight, regulatory influence, and quiet diplomacy. Strategic hesitancy and internal divisions have left the continent exposed. This must change. Europe holds significant assets—the scale of its single market, diplomatic reach, technological capacity, and an enduring network of partnerships. But tools unused are tools wasted. The challenge now is not to repeat declarations about unity and ambition, but to deliver them in practice. In a world where power is once again defined by clarity of interest and the resolve to defend it, Europe can no longer afford hesitation. Its security, prosperity, and credibility all depend on what it chooses to do next. The next decade will demand far greater unity and resilience, with stronger cohesion and responsiveness than Europe has shown in the recent past—requiring courageous leadership in the future, together with renewed commitment to shared values that transcend short-term interests.

Back to Table of Contents