Europe Is Preparing for a World Without U.S. Leadership—Are We Ready for That?

After Hegemony: What the world looks like when we no longer call the shots.

I’m a national security expert—by training, by practice. It’s not what I do anymore, but I spent about 20% of my life doing it. So when I ask this question, it’s not casual rhetoric:

Do we, the United States, want Europe independent of our protection?

For years, some Americans have argued that Europe has relied too heavily on the U.S. for security. That NATO allies aren’t pulling their weight. That we foot the bill while they enjoy the benefits. But is that really true? And if Europe were to go it alone, would that actually serve America’s interests?

France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, recently made a point that should give Americans pause: Europe cannot entrust its security to a country increasingly unpredictable in its commitments to allies.

And now, they have reason to worry. Yesterday, the President publicly questioned whether France—or other NATO allies—would defend America if the situation were reversed.

Let me be clear: that is false.

The idea that our allies haven’t upheld their obligations is not only misleading—it’s an insult to those who have fought and died alongside American soldiers.

Soldiers from France, Britain, Canada, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, Sweden, and Finland have been in the trenches with us during the Global War on Terror, in Iraq, and in the fight against ISIS. Beyond our historic European allies, soldiers from Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Romania have also served and sacrificed.

These nations have honored their commitments. They have paid the cost of war—not just in financial terms, but in lives.

For a sitting U.S. president to suggest otherwise is more than an error. It erodes trust, weakens alliances, and signals that America is no longer be a reliable partner.

If I were one of our allies, I would be stunned. Frustrated. And if I were from Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain, Italy, or Germany—America’s closest NATO allies—I would ask a difficult question: Can we count on the United States to honor its treaty and alliance commitments?

But security is not about feelings.

Europe now has to adjust to this new dynamic. The logical response is to become a military power in its own right.

That shift should concern us. Not because Europe doesn’t have the right to protect itself—it absolutely does—but because it signals a fracture in the post-World War II security order that has kept the world stable for decades.

For the first time since 1945, the U.S. risks losing its position as the primary security guarantor of the West.

That has profound consequences.

Let’s talk about why. Let’s talk about how, in less than one presidency, America could dismantle seventy-five years of strategic dominance—and what happens when the world no longer relies on the United States to hold it together.

Realism, Neorealism, and the Limits of Cooperation

To understand what’s happening now—and why Europe’s potential shift toward military independence is so consequential—we need to step back and look at the theoretical foundations of global power. I realize most of my subscribers are super smart, but I doubt many of you are political scientists (I am). So indulge me for a minute as I give you a very brief version of the lesson I’ve given thousands of poly-sci students in their “International Relations 101” classes. I think it’s important to have a background in the structure of understanding how people “like me” think about what people like “Trump” say and do. International statecraft is a discipline in and of itself, with research, theory, scholarship, and practicum. So here’s a brief overview:

Realism & Neorealism: Structures & Power (Everybody Wants to Rule the World)

For nearly a century, realism has shaped how policymakers and military strategists understand international relations. At its core, realism is built on a few fundamental principles:

1. The international system is anarchic – No global government enforces rules; survival depends on power.

2. States are the primary actors – While institutions like the United Nations exist, realists argue that states act in their self-interest, and power—not ideals—dictates global outcomes.

3. National interest and power drive decision-making – Morality and ideology may shape rhetoric, but security calculations ultimately dictate policy.

4. Military capability matters most – In an anarchic system, security depends on strength. Nations with military power set the terms of engagement.

Hans Morgenthau, one of the leading thinkers of classical realism, argued that international politics is governed by the same forces that shape human behavior—the will to power, competition, and self-interest. In his 1948 book Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau laid out a stark vision of world affairs: states act rationally to maximize power, alliances are fleeting, and international law is often secondary to raw power politics.

By the late 20th century, realism evolved into neo-realism, most associated with Kenneth Waltz. In Theory of International Politics (1979), Waltz shifted the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system as the key driver of state behavior. This was a key observation, countries had no choice to act in certain ways. They either understood the international system, or they perished (this was a key distinction from “realism” scholarship prior.) Waltz argued that:

• The world is defined by balance-of-power politics—when one nation or alliance grows too strong, others push back to maintain equilibrium.

• The distribution of power (unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity) determines global stability.

• States act not out of greed or aggression, but out of necessity to ensure their own survival.

For Waltz, the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity—the period when America was the undisputed global superpower—was an anomaly. The world, he argued, naturally tends toward balance, and that balance is now shifting.

Stephen Walt built on this framework with his balance of threat theory. He argued that states don’t just respond to power—they respond to perceived threats. Nations form alliances based on:

• The aggregate power of a rival (military, economy, population).

• Geographic proximity (neighbors feel threats more directly).

• The rival’s offensive capabilities (the ability to project force).

• Perceived aggressive intentions (hostile rhetoric and actions matter).

For decades, Europe aligned with the U.S. under NATO not just because of shared history but because the Soviet Union posed an existential threat. After the Cold War, Europe continued to rely on the U.S. because American power still provided stability and shielded them from a rogue Russia as well as other perceived threats (Iran, China, etc.)

With a growing perception that the U.S. is an unreliable partner, Europe has little choice but to reassess its alliances. According to realists, the United States has moved from being an ally to being a threat to stability (from the view of Europe) itself. Europe cannot afford not to balance this threat.

What About Institutions? The Limits of Cooperation

Realists argue that power dictates international relations, but some scholars—notably Robert Keohane—have pushed back. In After Hegemony (1984), Keohane laid out the case for neoliberal institutionalism: institutions like NATO, the EU, and the UN help stabilize global politics by reducing uncertainty, fostering cooperation, and creating interdependence.

Keohane argues that states don’t just react to power but also calculate cooperation's benefits. Even in an anarchic system, international institutions can constrain states’ worst impulses and create incentives to follow rules.

But institutions only work if major powers respect them.

When a leading power—like the United States—begins undermining alliances, questioning commitments, and disregarding multilateral agreements, the credibility of those institutions erodes. And when institutions break down, realism takes over.

That’s where we are now.¹

For decades, NATO functioned as a security stabilizer not just because of military power but because the U.S. upheld the credibility of its commitments. Now, with the U.S. openly questioning NATO’s purpose and treating allies as expendable, Europe is reverting to a realist mode of survival—preparing to ensure its own security, independent of American guarantees.

This is the moment where realism reasserts itself.

NATO and other institutions won’t disappear overnight, but their role in maintaining security depends on trust. And if that trust is gone, so is the system that has kept Europe stable for nearly 80 years.

The Implications of Realism Today

Realism tells us that alliances are not permanent. They exist as long as they serve a mutual strategic interest. If Europe sees the U.S. as unpredictable—or worse, a liability—it will act accordingly.

If that happens, the global balance of power will shift in ways that fundamentally alter the world order.

Now, let’s talk about what that looks like.

Europe’s Reassessment—From Security Partner to Strategic Liability

Europe has relied on the United States for nearly eight decades as the cornerstone of its security architecture. NATO, formed in the wake of World War II, was built on the premise that American power would serve as a stabilizing force against external threats—first the Soviet Union, then global terrorism, and now, a revanchist Russia.

That position is now being reassessed (at best) and most likely outright abandoned.

President Trump’s rhetoric and actions have forced European leaders to view the United States not just as an unreliable partner, but increasingly as a potential threat to European security. This shift is not based on ideological differences or diplomatic disputes; it is grounded in the core tenets of realism and balance-of-threat theory. When a hegemonic power becomes unpredictable—when its commitments waver, and its leaders openly undermine alliances—other states must recalibrate their security posture accordingly. That is exactly what Europe is now doing.

The Erosion of Trust in NATO Commitments

Trump’s skepticism toward NATO is well-documented. He has openly questioned the alliance’s value, suggested that the U.S. might not fulfill its Article 5 defense commitments, and framed America’s security guarantees as transactional rather than strategic. This approach directly contradicts the logic of alliances outlined by theorists like Walt, who argued that states form security coalitions not out of goodwill, but because they face common threats. If an alliance no longer guarantees protection, its members will seek alternatives.

For European nations, Trump’s rhetoric raises an alarming question: Can they still rely on the United States as a security guarantor? If the answer is no, then the logical course of action is to prepare for a future in which the U.S. is absent—or even adversarial—in European security calculations.

Unilateral U.S. Actions and the Shift in Global Power Perceptions

Beyond NATO, Trump’s broader approach to foreign policy has reinforced European concerns. His unilateral decisions—such as withdrawing from international agreements, imposing tariffs on European allies, and abruptly halting military assistance to Ukraine—have been perceived as aligning more closely with authoritarian adversaries like Russia and China than with traditional democratic allies.

From a neorealist perspective, these actions accelerate what Kenneth Waltz predicted: the inevitable balancing against U.S. power. If the U.S. is no longer willing to play the role of stabilizer, then Europe must step into that void. And if the U.S. begins behaving in a way that actively destabilizes its allies, then Europe must prepare to counterbalance American influence.

Strategic Autonomy: Europe’s Move Toward Self-Reliance

In response to this shifting landscape, European nations have taken steps toward greater strategic autonomy:

• Increased Defense Spending: Germany, France, and other EU nations have proposed significant defense budgets to reduce reliance on U.S. military support. NATO’s European members are meeting or exceeding the 2% GDP defense spending target—not because of Trump’s demands, but because they increasingly see no other choice.

• Independent Military Capabilities: The European Union has launched new defense initiatives, such as the €800 billion ReArm Europe initiative, designed to enhance military capacity independent of the United States.

• New Strategic Alliances: European leaders are exploring closer security ties with each other and with emerging global powers, signaling a shift away from automatic alignment with Washington.

The United States as a Potential Threat

This reassessment of America’s role is not merely about reliability; it is about risk. Under balance-of-threat theory, states align against actors they perceive as dangerous. Traditionally, Europe viewed Russia as the primary threat—hence NATO’s post-Cold War expansion. But if the United States becomes an unreliable, erratic, or destabilizing force, then it too becomes something European nations must hedge against.

For decades, U.S. foreign policy was guided by a kind of implicit bargain: America provided stability, and in return, allies followed its lead. But realism tells us that alliances are not permanent; they exist only as long as they serve mutual interests. If Trump—or any future U.S. president—continues to weaken these foundations, Europe will adapt. And adaptation means shifting from dependence on the U.S. to a world where Europe is prepared to act independently—even if that means counterbalancing American influence.

The End of American Primacy?

From a realist perspective, this is the natural course of international relations. Hegemonic powers do not last forever. As Waltz predicted, unipolarity is inherently unstable; other states will eventually seek to balance against the dominant power. That process is now accelerating—not because of China, Russia, or any external force, but because of the actions of the United States itself.

Trump may not have intended to dismantle America’s global position, but if the world no longer trusts the United States as a stabilizing force, then the end of American primacy will not come from foreign challengers—it will come from within.

What This Means for Americans: A World Where Europe Acts Alone

For the average American, the idea of Europe developing its own military power independent of the United States may seem abstract—something for policymakers and defense analysts to worry about. Undoubtedly for some in MAGA (and the President’s supporters), they’ll cheer it, wrongly believing that Europe is a freeloader. Average Americans may also share this view, thinking they’ll always be the “top dog,” despite whatever comes down the pike.

The reality is that this shift carries profound consequences for U.S. influence, economic stability, and even national security. What Trump is doing is playing “Russian Roulette” with our national survival. Each misstep, we spin the revolver, put it to our head, and pull the trigger. Eventually, we’re going to catch that bullet. This is a question of when, not if.

For nearly 80 years, the United States has been the primary security guarantor for Europe. This arrangement wasn’t just about protecting allies—it gave the U.S. enormous leverage over European political and economic decisions. For a guy who claims to be a genius businessman, the reality of this fact is ignored, or outright lied about. We run the world the way it is because it benefits us. These people aren’t freeloaders, but our servants, or at least they were.

American leadership in NATO ensured that European nations aligned with U.S. interests, followed Washington’s lead in global crises, and remained economically and militarily dependent on American power. When that changes—if Europe becomes a fully independent military power—then the U.S. loses one of its greatest strategic advantages. At best, we become a powerful actor attempting to survive in a multi-polar world. At worst, the wealth, power, prestige, and safety Americans enjoyed for five generations will evaporate in less than a decade; all for lies, defamatory statements, and capricious desires of a fatally flawed felon who was elected President.

The Loss of Strategic Leverage

One of the biggest benefits of the current system is that the United States, as Europe’s primary military protector, effectively sets the terms of transatlantic policy. That’s why Europe has followed the U.S. on key foreign policy issues—sanctions against adversaries, military interventions, and diplomatic positioning. Despite all of the “bullshit,” and defamatory remarks from Republicans and Trump, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have followed the U.S. Our allies have been there for us, economically, militarily, and politically. They might not have done exactly what we wanted, but not once have any of them ever stood opposed to us.

That’s going to end thanks to the President.

A militarily independent Europe would no longer need to align with Washington. Moreover, it is doubtful that it will align itself with our interests at all absent the security and economic ties that have bound us for generations. If European nations have the ability to defend themselves without U.S. assistance, they also can ignore U.S. pressure. Donald Trump likes to talk about “Fuck you,” money; in international affairs, military capability is “Fuck you,” money.

When Trump destroys the international framework, this is what Americans can look forward to:

• Less U.S. control over economic policy – Europe would be free to trade with adversaries like China and Russia without fear of U.S. retaliation. If Washington pushes for sanctions, Europe could refuse. That would effectively make the US’s leadership position impotent. While the US is the largest market, it’s only the largest as long as it controls trade and economics. If it loses its leverage to coordinate the other developed economies of the world, nearly half of our soft (and hard power) evaporates with that choice.

• More divergence on military action – Europe would no longer be obligated to participate in U.S.-led interventions. If America wanted European support in a conflict—whether in the Middle East, Asia, or elsewhere—European leaders could decline without fear of losing U.S. security guarantees. Even more problematic, would be if Europe takes a position against the United States.

• A competing power in global affairs – Instead of working as Washington’s junior partner, Europe could emerge as an independent pole in a multipolar world, negotiating its alliances and setting policies that may contradict U.S. interests. While the US and its allies have been aligned, in an environment where the U.S. is antagonistic, Europe will undoubtedly move to undermine the U.S. In this regard, Trump’s legacy will be to have destroyed the ability of the U.S. to be “the leader of the free world.” At best, we’d be relegated to being just another voice. Again, that’s “at best.”

An Economic Blow to the United States

Beyond military strategy, this shift could have profound economic implications for the U.S. Again, for a guy who allegedly is such a great businessman, this is a self inflicted business wound without any basis in fact other than MAGA’s delusions and defamatory positions about our allies:

• The weakening of the U.S. defense industry – European nations currently buy TRILLIONS of dollars in American weapons and military equipment over a decade of time because they are integrated into NATO’s command structure. If Europe develops an independent military-industrial complex, American defense contractors could lose billions in arms sales. As it presently stands, I would expect Europe to completely abandon the F-35 fighter. That loss alone will be tantamount to a loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for America’s A&D industry. The United States cannot sell its top-line equipment to the likes of Russia or China. For one, the Europeans would not allow it (they would sanction and attack the United States), and for another, the Russians and Chinese can’t afford it even if we were reckless enough to lose our minds and attempt to sell such weapons to them. The relationship we have with Europe ensures that the United States A&D industry makes hundreds of billions in revenues and that “the West” remains well armed with US weapons. Again, this is a choice made by MAGA and the President, it’s nothing being driven by outside forces; it’s a choice made by delusion and defamation.

• A challenge to the U.S. dollar’s dominance—The U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, in large part because American military power underpins global economic stability. If Europe becomes a self-sufficient power center, it is more likely that it will push for alternative reserve currencies, reducing global dependence on the dollar. “Eddies” could easily replace the “Greenback” around the world; especially if the ECB and its leaders in France and Germany are stable, and the US is led by an Orange Orangutan who imposes tariffs without warning and flip-flops daily with no explicable reason.

• A shift in trade relationships – Without security dependence on the U.S., European nations would be free to prioritize economic ties with China, India, and other rising powers, weakening Washington’s economic influence.

A More Unstable World for the U.S.

For decades, U.S. foreign policy has operated under the assumption that the transatlantic alliance provides global stability. A fractured alliance means a less predictable world—one in which American leaders can no longer assume that Europe will be on their side. We could face France, Germany, and Britain in a conflict; especially if we’re reckless enough to align ourselves with Russia and China.

This could manifest in several ways:

• America could find itself alone, or at worst opposed, in major global conflicts. If the U.S. engages in a standoff with China over Taiwan, or a military confrontation with Iran, Europe could decide to remain neutral—or even act as a mediator rather than an ally. Or worse, given power politics, they could actively undermine the U.S. Given their knowledge of our strategy, training, doctrine, capabilities, intelligence gathering, etc., this would prove FATAL.

• European military power could counterbalance U.S. economic interests. A militarized and independent Europe would have the capability to challenge U.S. dominance in global institutions like the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank.

• Russia and China could benefit from U.S.-European division. If Washington and Brussels are no longer in lockstep, adversaries could exploit the cracks in the Western alliance, striking deals that weaken U.S. leverage. This means Americans wind up poorer, less safe, and ultimately, relegated to being a “nobody” in international affairs.

Trump’s desire appears to be to bring an End To American Leadership

This shift doesn’t necessarily mean Europe will become an outright rival to the U.S. (although don’t kid yourself, that could happen). Still, it does mean the era of unquestioned American leadership would end.

For decades, America’s global power rested on two pillars:

1. Economic strength – The dominance of the U.S. dollar, the strength of its global economy, and its leadership of the global financial system.

2. Military alliances – The ability to dictate security arrangements through NATO and other coalitions.

If Europe no longer needs U.S. military protection, one of those pillars will crumble. If economic power follows, the world will move into a multipolar era, where the U.S. will be just one of several competing power centers rather than the dominant force shaping the global order.

The irony is that none of this had to happen.

No foreign enemy forced this upon us.

An external force didn’t threaten America’s position at the top of the global hierarchy—it was self-inflicted. When Washington began treating allies as disposable, those allies began planning for a world where they didn’t need Washington. The President’s defamatory and delusional positions force our “friends” to turn their backs and walk away.

They have no choice. Get it wrong, you die. I’d treat us as an enemy as well.

Europe’s shift toward military independence is not just a geopolitical development—it’s a reckoning for the United States. Every American will feel the consequences in ways they may not realize until they cry out in the pain brought about by reckless and callous regard for the system built and cared for from FDR to Biden.

The Future We Could Have Had

When I was younger, I lived in a world where the United States led a global coalition of nations—where American strength, diplomacy, and vision powered the free world.

Reagan revitalized American leadership, and from that point forward, we built the most prosperous and stable era in human history. The system forged at Potsdam, Bretton Woods, and NATO laid the foundation for a world where:

• The Soviet Union collapsed without a shot being fired in Central Europe.

• New democracies emerged across the world.

• Global trade lifted billions out of poverty.

• The United States strode the world like a colossus, unmatched in power, influence, and stability.

Even now, the so-called "rise of China" is more myth than reality—they are a paper tiger, overhyped and far more fragile than they appear.

For decades, the United States had no true rival. We dictated the terms. We shaped the future.

Yet instead of stewarding that legacy—leading our coalition through the challenges of AI, climate change, and globalization—this President has chosen to dismantle everything:

Everything our allies fought beside us for.

Everything every American in uniform gave their last full measure of devotion to uphold.

Everything that every immigrant that came to this country helped to build.

And for what?

A string of petty slights and self-inflicted delusions?

A tantrum over alliances that have kept us powerful?

A reckless, ignorant rejection of the very system that made America great in the first place?

History will remember this moment.

And when Americans feel the pain of what’s been lost—when they realize that our power, economy, and influence have slipped away—not because of war, external enemies, but because of our negligence—there will be no one else to blame.

While everybody might have wanted to rule the world. When history looks back, they’re going to draw one conclusion:

We did.

When I worked in National Security, I never saw it as partisan, despite being a partisan. I would tell our allies and Democrats that I debated policy with, there are two choices in national security, the ones we survive, and the ones we don’t. With that, I leave readers with this last thought:

In international politics, even the most powerful states must worry about the consequences of their actions.

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics

1. Oddly enough, after After Hegemony was released, it caused quite a stir in policy and political science circles. The book’s context at the time was less about military alliances and more about economic power—specifically, whether Japan and Germany’s rising economic influence might erode America’s hegemonic position in the West after the Cold War.

When I was a political science student, the funny thing about Keohane’s book was that Americans were the only people truly worried about the decline of American hegemony. I remember a visiting professor from Austria once telling me:

“America has more power than it knows what to do with. Economic, military, diplomatic—power is pouring out of every direction. And yet, for whatever reason, Americans have this inferiority complex, convinced they’re losing their grip, when in reality, the entire world depends on them. Even their enemies, if they were honest, would admit that American leadership is probably preferable to anyone else’s.”

That conversation stayed with me, particularly as a U.S. official and “diplomat.” I would watch governments publicly condemn U.S. policies in the Global War on Terror, only to privately—sometimes desperately—demand more U.S. security commitments, more pressure on adversaries like Iran, China, Russia, and Syria. Behind closed doors, the same officials who played to the cameras with performative outrage would express gratitude for American power and leadership.

This isn’t American hubris on my part—I witnessed it firsthand. And in some ways, it made sense. For decades, the U.S. rarely demanded anything in return for its security guarantees. American foreign policy wasn’t transactional; it was strategic. We didn’t occupy countries to conquer them. We used force—sometimes wisely, sometimes catastrophically—to maintain global stability. Even when our interventions were misguided (Vietnam, Iraq), no country seriously believed the United States would turn into a destabilizing force. That perception allowed us to manage international affairs for nearly 80 years.

Then Trump came along and shattered it.

And history will remember this as the moment America let it all slip away.