Giacomo Maragnani is a graduate student of international governance and diplomacy at Sciences Po in Paris, France, as well as a research and editorial intern at the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD).
The 2024 U.S. presidential election once again took center stage, as if it were a World Cup final that gets broadcast every four years around the world. Underneath this political show, Donald Trump’s return to the White House brings both challenges and opportunities for the EU and the European continent as a whole. Europe has long depended on American protection and was accustomed to an international system dominated by the United States. Now, however, it faces a reality that cannot be avoided: the world has changed and has already entered a transitional phase toward a multipolar order. To survive in this environment, the EU needs maturity and the ability to defend and pursue its own interests.
For decades, Europe has considered the United States the primary source of its security and stability. NATO has been the centerpiece of the transatlantic defense, with common principles acting as the political glue. However, with his avowedly “America First” policy and often transactional view of foreign affairs, Trump’s second term serves as a reminder that, while American and European interests do overlap in many areas, they are not always completely aligned. This, in itself, is not necessarily an issue. Like for any other sovereign nation, the United States has its right to follow its pursuits and national priorities. At the same time, the EU should be able and ready to do the same, even if this entails disagreement with its principal ally and partner across the pond.
The United States cannot be expected to continue guaranteeing the security of the European continent at little to no cost to the latter, or making decisions solely in accordance with European interests. The EU and some people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean must recognize and accept that the era of strategic reliance on Washington has ended. This does not imply dismantling the transatlantic alliance but rather strengthening it so that it becomes a partnership based on equitable bilateral contributions and increased European autonomy.
From an aspirational concept, European strategic autonomy has become an urgent necessity. Events in Ukraine have underlined how dangerous it is for Europe to remain a passive geopolitical actor. The war has demonstrated Russia’s firm willingness to redefine borders and the balance of power. It effectively exploited a period of uncertainty, brought on by the increasing difficulties of the hegemonic United States to project its influence on the global chessboard and the geopolitical recession that followed. But these events once more highlighted the inability of Europe to reply promptly and effectively without American support. I say, as an Italian and European, that this is no longer tolerable.
The EU must develop military, economic, technological, and diplomatic capabilities in order to protect its values and interests.
The appeasement policy pursued by then UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference in 1938 is a particularly enlightening example of the meaning of autonomy. The decision to give in to Hitler’s demands regarding the Sudetenland in the hope of saving European peace turned out to be a fatal mistake, even though it gave the West valuable time to prepare for war. That degree of naivety is not conceivable today. Seeking peace with Russia in Ukraine does not mean giving in to any of its demands or accepting its actions; it is a realistic and strategic position. The objective is not only to end the conflict but also to establish a balance of power that makes Moscow understand that further aggression is unsustainable.
The primary distinction between Chamberlain’s policy and the approach required today lies precisely in the awareness of the possible consequences. Making concessions was thought to satisfy Hitler’s ambitions while preserving the European order. Today, any agreement with the Russian Federation must be accompanied by a strengthening of European defensive capabilities and establishing a deterrence framework to prevent Moscow from repeating its actions in the future. This is not naivety but strategic pragmatism.
Collaboration among member states and the development of common tools are unavoidable steps towards strengthening the EU. A good example of this is the collaboration between Leonardo, the Italian defense conglomerate, and Rheinmetall, a leading German military company. This project, which aims to develop next-generation tanks, represents not only industrial capacity but also Europe’s ability to build a common defense. Investing in one’s own security does not imply turning one’s back on the United States but rather developing a more balanced transatlantic relationship in which both sides contribute significantly to collective security.
The Russia issue is critical, but it is not the only challenge. The EU operates in a geopolitical context in which relations with all major powers, from the United States, China and Russia, to emerging regional powers, must be handled with realism and foresight. Demonizing Russia as the “absolute evil” serves no purpose; the devils, if this is how one must call them, can be found all over the world. Every nation, including Russia, acts in its own self-interest. Understanding the logic that motivates the Kremlin does not imply justifying its actions but rather knowing how to deal with them effectively. This understanding is also critical if Europe is not to become trapped in a logic of pure opposition.
It goes without saying that Russia needs to be contained, when necessary, but communication, even at times of pronounced adversity, must continue. Isolating Russia completely risks pushing it deeper into China’s arms, resulting in a strengthened hostile bloc that will be even more difficult to manage. An intelligent policy requires balance: strengthening European defenses, supporting Ukraine, and keeping communication channels open to avoid an uncontrollable escalation spiral.
The need to attain strategic autonomy does not stop at the military dimension. The European Union needs to strengthen its economic and technological resilience as well. Dependence on external actors for any critical technology or energy resource is a risk that the EU cannot afford. Energy transition and technological innovation must become strategic priorities for Europe if it is to hold its own in an increasingly multipolar world.
However, the path to autonomy will not be easy at all. Conflicting national interests continue to divide Europe, preventing common action. European foreign and security policy is fragmented, with a lack of cohesive leadership. Member States should seriously consider giving up some of their national autonomy and sovereignty in order to build a collective capacity capable of meeting global challenges. Without greater internal cohesion, the EU threatens to remain an economic and regulatory powerhouse but a geopolitical outlier.
As the Latin adage goes, Si vis pacem, para bellum, meaning “if you want peace, prepare for war.” But to prepare for war would mean much more than building armies and reinforcing defenses; it would also involve a level of preparedness for all the complexity of geopolitics itself, the will to negotiate both with foes and friends alike, and the ability to accept imperfection in a world where ideals can only be insisted upon through will and robust presence. With its history and vision, the EU has all it takes to be the beacon of stability and progress in this turbulent world. It just needs to be willing to fight for this light not to dim. Peace is never a given. On the contrary, it is earned and conquered. In order to conquer it, the EU needs to wake up, get its hands dirty, and become fully involved. After all, it is its future that’s at stake.
