Olivier Hoslet / EPA
French President Emmanuel Macron
As the United States launches successive threats, European leaders are making difficult decisions. And his mood changed.
The first full year of Donald Trump upon his return to the White House, he brought with him more existential questions to America’s European allies than his entire first term.
The American president has repeatedly stated that the true threat Europe’s security is not the Russian president Vladimir Putinbut rather the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.
And Trump’s latest obsession is to seize Greenland from Denmark, a NATO ally, highlights the journalist specializing in European diplomacy Luke McGee in an article on .
Europeans have gone to great lengths to accommodate a White House unpredictable and keep Trump on their side by agreeing to drastic increases in their national defense budgets, while courting carefully the American president.
Last year, agreements were established in which European governments pay to the USA to maintain arms shipments to Ukraine, while commit to their own troops to guarantee Kiev’s sovereignty, in lieu of any American guarantees.
Over the past two weeks, however, these calculations have changed — as well as, apparently, the state of mind of European leaders.
Trump, encouraged by his successful capture of Nicolás Maduroseems determined to turn his persistent geopolitical fantasies into reality — be that invade Greenland or betray Ukraine.
A clearer shift in European thinking emerged this week, when Andrius Kubiliusthe European Commissioner for Defense, publicly floated the idea of a European Security Councilmade up of 10 to 12 European nations that could command a combined force of up to 100,000 standing troops, led by the European Commission.
A idea of a permanent European force is not new. Europeans have been debating for years the idea of something similar to a EU army for yearswith varying results.
Although there are procedures that allow the EU to use NATOthe idea of a full command from UE has always been difficult to agree between EU member states. Although most EU states are members of NATO, some, such as Ireland and Malta are officially neutral.
“The then German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed the idea of a European Security Council in 2015,” a former NATO official told McGee this week, on condition of anonymity.
“The problem was that, although larger countries like France (and previously the United Kingdom) loved the ideasmall and medium-sized countries did not like the idea of the ‘big’ EU having more influence over their national security and replicate what already existed through NATO“.
Several States that share borders with Russia were uncomfortable with an initiative that would give Germany important influence about their ability to protect themselves from Kremlin aggression, given Germany’s dependence at the time on cheap Russian gas, the former official said.
European countries have also previously refused the idea of the European Commission having a leadership role in any type of structure command.
Any official role for the Commission immediately raises the question of how the body, which is not directly elected by voters but it has commissioners appointed by the Member States and the European Parliament, it can represent all 27 EU Member States in security matters and defense, given the wide range of opinions within the block itself.
For example, even among anti-Russian hawksPoland is not willing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, while France has already committed to doing so in the event of a peace agreement. This scenario further becomes more confusing when looking at countries more favorable to Russiasuch as Hungary and Slovakia.
But 2026 has already changed these calculations. “There is a window in which this could actually happen,” a European security source told McGee. Unlike previous efforts, “this would not be an EU structureas Kubilius already said that it would include the United Kingdom”, which, being one of only two powers nuclear independent of the continent, “would be essential for a European-led Security Council to function.”
Sources close to Kubilius indicated that although the comments do not represent an official change in EU policy, it is widely accepted in Brussels that the thinking about European securityincluding the role of the EU in any future structures, need to changeand that EU institutions may have to take a back seat to bringing parties on board.
In recent weeks, there has been much evidence that European countries, including NATO members, are increasingly willing to place themselves in direct opposition to the Trump administration.
The leaders of six European nations — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain — signed a joint declaration with Denmark, stating that “Greenland belongs to its peopleand only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters relating to their relations”.
In normal times, this would be a trite statement. But it appears after repeated attacks from Danish territory by the White House, and these same countries, together with other NATO members, sent troops to Greenland as part of a reconnaissance mission.
Although the official reason for the mission is, according to Germany, “to explore options for ensuring security in light of Russian and Chinese threats in the Arctic”, the real recipient is clearly in Washington.
Europe’s comforting illusions that Putin not a threat so big, that Americans will “always be there”were cruelly exposed as false. Urgent work is needed to provide a credible European alternative to security through a US-led NATO.
However, the EU’s rigid structures probably cannot accommodate the flexibility and buy-in required.
A European Security Council would require probably something completely new, something that is not bound by any treaty existing and not based on existing structures, such as the Berlin Plus agreement between the EU and NATO, which still involve the United States and would give reticent veto power.
Structures that bring together like-minded countrieswithout treaties, already exist — the G7 and the European Political Communityto cite two examples. These could provide a good starting point for any new European security framework based on mutual political consent.
Sometimes it can seem surreal to see proposals like these written on paper. But in 2026, Trump transformed the US from an already unpredictable ally in a potential Hostile state that could threaten the future of NATO.
Europe simply don’t have time to browse by the complicated political structures of old institutions that operated based on assumptions that no longer apply.
As a senior European security source said when asked about Kubilius’s comments: “We live in a new reality. We need to change our mentality too.”
