As the world reorganises itself into new power structures, the European Union appears to be lagging behind, lacking real projection capacity and too dependent on the United States. We never thought we would write these words, but Trump’s choices have effectively broken the concept of the ‘West’.

To understand the roots of this weakness, one has to go back to the origins of European integration. After the devastation of World War II, the continent’s leaders conceived economic and political union as an antidote to conflict. The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 led to the birth of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), a project designed to bind the economies of the former belligerents and make a new confrontation between France and Germany impossible. The idea worked to ensure internal stability, but at the price of an increasing disengagement in defence.

Every attempt to build a truly autonomous military capability has met with political vetoes, national resistance and a chronic lack of strategic will. Even today, when it comes to European defence, the debate is reduced to declarations of principle without substance.

The unexpected shared synthesis between Trump and Putin forces Europe to rethink its strategic role. What would happen if Russia threatened military action on its eastern borders? The Lisbon Treaty would oblige all member states to respond ‘by any means necessary’, but the reality is quite different: without an autonomous European army, Europe’s defence remains in the hands of NATO, and thus of the United States. In such a scenario, dependence on the American umbrella would become even more evident.

Meanwhile, Europe has not stood completely still. It has initiated projects such as the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) to integrate armed forces and is developing sixth-generation fighters with two separate programmes: the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), promoted by Germany, France and Spain, and the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), involving Italy, the UK and Japan. However, these efforts remain confined to specialist circles and ignored by the mainstream media. There is a lack of a strong narrative: the EU flag on military uniforms has never become a symbol of pride, and European defence remains an uncomfortable issue, often relegated to the margins of politics.

In this context, sovereignist movements delude themselves that they represent a solution to Europe’s strategic crisis, when in reality they only reinforce its subservience to the great global powers. It is one thing to want to improve one’s common home, quite another to set it on fire. They are not true sovereignists: they are politicians who put their party’s consensus before everything, even the nation they claim to love. Their actions do not strengthen Europe, they weaken it.

On the other hand, the progressive forces have turned the very idea of the European Union into a dogma, almost an automatic reflex: as if the EU, in itself, was sufficient to guarantee peace and security. Their motto, if there ever was one, seems to have been: “Don’t shoot, we are Europeans!“. A dangerous illusion, which has rendered the continent strategically blind and incapable of defending itself.

Friedrich Merz, in Germany, has shown openness towards a common European defence, proposing greater cooperation between willing countries and considering it ‘ridiculous’ that 80 per cent of Europe’s military expenditure is made abroad. An idea that could translate into a concrete acceleration, as long as it is not blocked by the usual internal resistance. In the meantime, there is renewed talk of the provisions of the old CED Treaty, never implemented, which could serve as the basis for a European army.

Europe can no longer afford this naivety. It must invest in genuine strategic and military autonomy. It needs a European patriotism that is not a bureaucratic exercise, but a concrete identity, to be worn proudly even on military uniforms. Europe has a choice before it: become a power or slip into the irrelevance of history. Time is running out.