he vision of Winston Churchill’s warm relationship with the United States seems to be fading as the geopolitical landscape continues to shift. In the 1940s, the United Kingdom and much of Europe accepted American leadership, particularly in defence and foreign policy. The establishment of NATO was a significant symbol of Western unity.
In aligning closely with the US, Western European states relinquished much of their sovereignty in international affairs. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, that long-standing partnership appears to be increasingly strained. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has become a major point of tension, revealing the complexities of the relationship between Europe and the US, with differing approaches to supporting Ukraine’s defence against Russian aggression.
This divide became even more apparent during Zelensky’s recent visit to the United States. While European leaders have largely remained supportive of Ukraine, US leaders including Trump and JD Vance have a very different stance.
Trump suggested that Ukraine’s struggle was not America’s concern and accused Zelensky of misusing US aid. Vance echoed these sentiments, calling for a rethinking of US involvement. This treatment highlighted the growing scepticism about Ukraine in parts of the US political sphere.
On the other hand, European leaders remained resolute in their support, seeing Ukraine’s situation as a direct threat to European values and security, which has only deepened the rift between the US and Europe. This contrast in responses signals a possible shift in the geopolitical balance, one that could redefine future trans-Atlantic relations and potentially challenge the unity of NATO.
The treatment of Zelensky underscores a broad shift in US priorities, where the retreat from Europe’s security needs in favour of an inward-looking, more isolationist stance could have significant consequences. If the US continues to disengage from its role as the primary guarantor of European security, it will fall to Europe to manage its own defence and navigate its relationship with Russia.
This growing division over Ukraine could mark the beginning of a new era for NATO and Europe’s role on the global stage. The situation mirrors historical moments when alliances shifted, much like Churchill’s pivot towards US patronage during and after World War II. Churchill’s decision was driven by necessity, as Britain, weakened by war, could not stand alone against the threat of Nazi Germany. The US, emerging as the world’s dominant superpower, became Britain’s indispensable ally, reshaping global geopolitics and establishing a new world order under US leadership.
This evolving dynamic is also reflected in the complexities highlighted by Henry Kissinger’s views on American foreign policy. His assertion that while American animosity may be dangerous for a country, its friendship can be even more perilous, points to the destabilising effects of US interventions. From Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to Israel, these engagements have often led to unintended consequences.
The Iraq War, in particular, revealed the risks of US alliance. It left behind a region fraught with instability and the rise of extremist groups like the ISIS. Similarly, the War on Terror compromised Pakistan’s sovereignty, drawing it into a difficult partnership with the US and NATO that undermined its national interests.
The intervention in Libya, framed as a humanitarian effort, ultimately led to the collapse of the state, creating a power vacuum and fuelling further conflict. The US’s unwavering support for Israel has also led to deep divisions with European countries and exacerbated tensions in the Middle East.
These interventions underscore Kissinger’s point: while American alliances may seem beneficial, they often come with hidden costs, eroding the autonomy of smaller nations and contributing to instability. As the US pivots away from its European allies, the repercussions of these complex relationships will continue to shape the future of global diplomacy.
John Mearsheimer, another prominent voice in international relations, offers a critique of US foreign policy that aligns with Kissinger’s concerns. Mearsheimer, a realist, argues that American interventionism—particularly in Eastern Europe and Ukraine—destabilised regions previously under Russian influence.
He contends that the US expanded NATO eastward after the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite assurances to Russia in 1990-91 that NATO would not move eastwards. This exacerbated tensions and led to the current conflict in Ukraine.
Mearsheimer sees the US as a disruptor of the international balance of power, prioritising its own strategic interests over global stability. For him, American actions are not benign. Rather, they create more conflict and insecurity, particularly in regions that have historically been part of Russia’s sphere of influence.
Mearsheimer has emphasised that for the last eight decades or so, Europe has left its security concerns squarely to the US, who kept on bearing that burden to sustain its imperial interests and ambitions. Now is the time for Europe to think in terms of investing in its own security architecture. This will lead the European states to formulate their own foreign policy. Independent foreign policy is a strong marker of sovereignty. Thus, Mearsheimer advocates Europe to navigate an independent path, instead of playing second fiddle to the United States.
Jeffrey Sachs, economist and public intellectual, has similarly criticised US foreign policy for its role in exacerbating tensions between Europe and Russia. Sachs frames the US as a destabilising force in the Ukraine crisis, arguing that the US has escalated the conflict through NATO expansion and its support for Ukraine’s NATO ambitions.
According to Sachs, the US is primarily driven by its military-industrial complex rather than a desire for peace or stability in Europe. He suggests that Europe, having experienced the horrors of two world wars, should focus on diplomacy rather than being pulled into a confrontation that serves American interests, not European security. He advises Ukraine to act neutral like Austria and Finland, instead of playing as a pawn in the hands of American imperialist designs.
Sachs warns that Europe risks being caught in a geopolitical struggle that could jeopardise its stability. In his address to the European Parliament in Brussels, he pointed out that Europe does not have any foreign policy other than their loyalty to United States. Like Mearsheimer, Prof Sachs exhorted the European states to devise their own foreign policy that reflect their national/ sovereign interests.
In conclusion, the shift in the global power structure, exemplified by Churchill’s strategic turn toward the US, has led to Europe’s growing dependence on American support. This arrangement, born of necessity in the aftermath of World War II, has long shaped global geopolitics. Its critiques by likes of Kissinger, Mearsheimer and Sachs highlight the dangers of excessive reliance on US foreign policy.
Sagacity demands that Europe chart its own course in reviewing its relationship with Russia. Western European states need to shun the deep-seated Russo-phobia and try to cultivate cordial relationship with their eastern neighbour. Among other things Europe needs the energy resources only Russia can provide to keep their economies on rails.
The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore
