Europe had been assuming an uncomfortable reality for years: it had to strengthen its defense without depending so much on the United States. But what was a medium-term forecast has become urgent after the the Donald Trump. The cancellation of the deployment in Germany and the withdrawal of 5,000 soldiers They have left the continent facing a security gap that is no longer theoretical.
The reaction in strategic circles has been immediate. The analyst Ulrike Franke summed it up in statements in the Financial Times about what “It’s wrecking ball politics… it’s a nightmare”. It is not just the substance of the decision. It’s the way.
The end of a key deterrence plan
The canceled deployment was not minor. It was part of a strategy designed during the Joe Biden administration to strengthen NATO’s deterrence against Russia.
The plan included a battalion equipped with:
- cruise missiles Tomahawk (more than 1,500 km range).
- ballistic missiles SM-6.
- Hypersonic systems Dark Eagle.
It was a temporary solution. A bridge. That bridge has disappeared.
A sign that worries… a lot
The message that analysts perceive is that The US is reducing its role as guarantor of European security. “We already knew it, but now it has materialized in terms of capabilities,” explains Professor Carlo Masala in the same medium.
The difference is key. Before it was a possibility. It is now an operational reality. And that has immediate consequences on the balance with Vladimir Putin.
The void: a Europe without immediate alternatives
The problem is not just what is lost. It is what does not yet exist. Europe has been depending on the US for decades in critical systems such as:
- Long range missiles.
- Anti-missile defense.
- Strategic transport.
- Satellite intelligence.
Developing your own alternatives is not quick. According to the German government’s own estimates, could take at least five years. And that is in the best of cases.
The European program… still in the initial phase
To fill this gap, several European countries—Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and Sweden—launched the ELSA program to develop own missiles. The objective: create medium and long-range systems that allow Europe to act without depending on Washington.
The problem is that many of these projects are still in the initial phases. A significant example is the joint plan between Germany and the United Kingdom to develop missiles with a range of more than 2,000 km. Two years after the announcement, there is still no industrial contract signed.
Trump’s strategy: unpredictability as the norm
Beyond the specific decision, what worries Europe is the way in which it is taking place. Ulrike Franke defines it as a politics of improvisation: “Doing this without a plan is very Trump-like”.
This unpredictability complicates European military planning. Without a clear retirement schedule, governments do not know what capabilities they will lose or when. And that makes it difficult to decide where to invest.
Kaliningrad, the hot spot
The strategic context does not help. Russia has reinforced its military presence in Kaliningrad, the enclave on the Baltic Sea which places several European capitals within range of its missiles. There it has deployed Iskander missiles with nuclear capabilities and hypersonic systems Kinzhal.
The canceled U.S. deployment was, in part, a direct response to that threat. Now, that answer disappears.
Not all experts view the scenario with the same pessimism. Analyst Fabian Hoffmann points out that Europe will have to develop its own capabilities no matter whatregardless of what the US does.
From this perspective, Trump’s decision does not change the final destination, but it does accelerate the process.
The reality: Europe needs “more missiles”
The conclusion, although uncomfortable, is increasingly shared in strategic circles: Europe needs to strengthen its deterrence capacity with its own systems. “What Europe needs are missiles, missiles and more missiles”Hoffmann sums it up. Not as an option, but as a structural necessity.
Trump’s decision could mark a before and after in European security.
For decades, the model was clear: the US leads and Europe complements. That model is beginning to break down. And the question that now arises is simple, but at the same time uncomfortable: can Europe defend itself… and for how long?
