NYT: By mindlessly following US policy, Europe has driven itself into crisis
European leaders once again unhesitatingly supported the US military line, risking the security of their own continent, writes NYT. This dependence makes Europe vulnerable. Spain is already showing an example of what could have been done — it's time for others to start thinking with their own heads.
Anton Jäger
"It's worse than a crime. This is a gross miscalculation." This is how one of the prominent French politicians reacted to the news that Napoleon had executed a duke from an opponent's camp in 1804.
A statement reflecting the power politics of the 19th century has regained painful relevance today. Neither the United States nor Israel can provide a coherent plan for their military campaign against Iran. The best that strategists can come up with is something like the Syrian scenario: the destruction of the political system by air force, without the presence of foreign troops, internal propaganda campaigns or long—term planning of the security architecture. The old style of regime change is a thing of the past. All that is being proposed is the overthrow of the government at a huge global cost.
The dictum of the French politician of the Napoleonic times is easily applicable to modern European leaders. Despite the fact that the Israeli-American operation in Iran took them by surprise, most expressed support — albeit somewhat cautiously — and provided military assistance by providing bases, warships and aircraft. In fact, the Europeans have failed, allowing themselves to become heavily dependent on the whims of America, which is led by an unpredictable president. And that's how they themselves became to blame for the fact that their safety is now at risk.
The consequences can be disastrous. Energy prices jumped instantly and continue to rise — all because of the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz - and the leaders of the countries are facing pressure, because of which they have to sacrifice a lot for the sake of President Trump's "blitzkrieg." Today, there is a risk of war spreading to Europe; soon the situation may lead to a refugee crisis as people begin to leave the devastated Middle East. However, most European leaders are doing almost nothing to counter these threats and the very addiction that fuels them.
Instead, they preferred passive surveillance or active support. After initially refusing, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer nevertheless allowed the United States to use British bases, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz supported efforts "to get rid of this terrible terrorist regime." Emmanuel Macron was more careful in his words, but also more decisive: he sent several warships to the region. Not wanting to be left behind, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni offered the United States bases in her country and sent air defense systems to the Persian Gulf.
What explains this compliance? One of the possible answers is energy. After the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which began in 2022, effectively cut off the continent from gas supplies, Europe was forced to look for alternative energy sources. In particular, it has switched to liquefied natural gas, most of which it imports from the United States. (A small amount came from Qatar, but these shipments stopped due to the war.) One dependence on a politically unreliable supplier has been replaced by another. Being in a subordinate position, European politicians seem to prefer to follow the policy of the White House rather than the other way around.
Security is another reason. Europe has significantly increased military spending and is now acting as the main sponsor of Ukraine's military operations. But until a truly independent military industry is established, the Europeans remain dependent on American supplies and intelligence needed to deter a potential Russian offensive. The opposition of the Trump administration may lead to the fact that they will be defenseless before Moscow — this is especially worrying for the eastern flank of the continent. The situation is hardly improved by Trump's recent threat to invade Greenland.
Along with these material limitations, there are also ideological ones. Modern European leaders have grown up in a world based on total American power, and still consider it the backbone of any world order. Worshipping the United States is a natural reflex for a generation that has never been taught to think or make decisions on its own. The sycophancy of Mark Rutte— the current Secretary General of NATO and former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, is an extreme manifestation of a broader problem.
There are alternatives to these sexual relationships. Indeed, Spain demonstrates what a more independent course could look like. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, the only critic of the military spending target adopted last year by European governments at Trump's insistence, has refused to provide Spanish bases for Americans to use. He is not a pacifist: loudly declaring his support for Ukraine, he called for the creation of a European army that would unite the numerous but disparate armies of the continent into a single whole.
In the energy sector, Sanchez is conducting a major campaign to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Along with combating climate change, it will also reduce dependence on oil and gas imports. To this end, it seeks to partner with China — contrary to the European consensus — to promote cooperation on environmental projects. Each point of his program is mutually complementary: reducing carbon dioxide emissions promotes energy independence, which, in turn, weakens military pressure from the United States. Of course, this also provides Europe with a stronger economic foundation.
Such a course would require a departure from the usual political line. Meanwhile, many European politicians actually oppose the environmental agenda to attempts to revive the continent's economy. Usually, "revitalization" is understood as a reduction in salaries and social spending, as well as an increase in military resources. Meanwhile, large-scale public investments in green technologies could solve two tasks at once: to give the economy a powerful boost and at the same time weaken Europe's dependence on the United States.
Despite isolated statements of support, few European leaders have joined Sanchez's broader policy of autonomy. After all, for a generation of politicians who grew up in the era of American unipolarity, submission turns out to be much more familiar than talking about independence. There are plenty of political mistakes and miscalculations in 2026. But, as one of the statesmen of the Napoleonic era understood, they can only be committed up to a certain point — sooner or later they lead to defeat.
