Since 2012, Europeans have faced a major crisis every three to four years, and with each episode of turbulence, driven by a survival instinct, they have been forced to be creative in order to get out of a rut.
Sovereign debt crisis in 2012? Launch of the banking union and permanent euro area rescue fund. Migration crisis in 2015? Cooperation in the reception of refugees and tighter control of the EU’s external borders. Brexit? Unprecedented defence of the integrity of the internal market. Covid-19 pandemic in 2021? Joint purchase of vaccines, shared debt to finance short-time working and economic recovery. Russian military attack against Ukraine in 2022? Rearmament through new shared debt.
2026 has arrived. For the first time since the beginning of European integration, an ally that has been the guarantor of Europe’s security since the Second World War has made it clear that it no longer intends to assume this role. Worse still, it openly covets the territory of another allied country, calling into question the very existence of NATO. In order to get its way, by means of a financial transaction (at this stage), it has begun an arm wrestling match with EU countries, the United Kingdom and Norway, threatening them with progressive customs duties to make them yield.
The nature of the European reaction is still in its infancy (see EUROPE 13789/2).
After the symbolic sending of a few soldiers to explore ways of reinforcing the security of Greenland and the Arctic region in the medium term, the tone has been raised a notch following the US threats made by Donald Trump this weekend. The leaders of the European countries concerned have warned against the “dangerous downward spiral” that a trade war would represent. For French President, Emmanuel Macron, the US statements are “unacceptable”. The German Finance Minister, Lars Klingbeil, has assured that Europe will respond to “economic blackmail”.
In this unbalanced transatlantic relationship, it is clear that, in Washington, the sycophancy resorted to by certain European leaders does not inspire respect. The Europeans certainly intend to pursue dialogue to defuse tensions, but they have no choice but to prepare the response in an attempt to establish a balance of power. They will never shoot first, but they must be ready for any eventuality should the Americans make good on their threats.
Promoted as a guarantee of stability and predictability by the Europeans themselves, the unbalanced trade agreement reached in July 2025 by the European Commission and the Trump administration is the first victim of the renewed tension and will probably be frozen until further notice. Envisaged in parallel with the trade negotiations, but never put into practice, a package of trade reprisals worth €93 billion has been pulled out of the fridge. With the exception of the far right, there is a consensus on the rigorous application of European digital rules.
Calls for the EU’s never-before-used ‘anti-coercion’ instrument to be put into action are now growing louder, even if German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, remains reluctant. This issue is expected to be on the agenda of the extraordinary European summit convened by the President of the European Council, António Costa, for Thursday 22 January in Brussels.
It will take a lot more for Europeans to earn the respect of an ‘ally’ with mafia-like methods, which appears prepared to humiliate them in pursuit of his own interests. As with previous existential crises, the urgency of the situation requires exploring uncharted territory in order to structure a response and act, united in face of adversity, to prevent the US act.
Will they be able to it?
Discussed for the first time in 2017 by the French and German leaders, the idea of a ‘European Security Council’ has re-emerged. Based on the UN model, the European Commissioner for Defence, Andrius Kubilius, has proposed that this council should include permanent member countries and others participating on a rotating basis (see EUROPE 13784/19). He has also appeared to promote the concept of a European army, whereas the ‘Strategic Compass’ provides for the mobilisation of a rapid reaction force of 5,000 men.
If they decide to act as Europeans, the Member States will probably move forward on an intergovernmental basis, which is more flexible and responsive to circumstances. Essential for the security of the continent, the participation of third European countries such as the United Kingdom makes the community method unworkable. This is illustrated by the ‘Coalition of the Willing’, which has been set up to ensure Ukraine’s security in the event of a peace agreement with Russia.
Original version in French by Mathieu Bion