Image credit: Pixabay
Ending the conflict in Ukraine, restoring stability in Europe, and reallocating U.S. resources with an eye on the Indo-Pacific region… Those were the approximate plans of the USA administration at the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidential term. Whether someone liked these plans or not, they seemed like a fairly well-thought-out strategy for strengthening the USA’s influence in the face of global changes in the world.
However, new plans were added to these shortly after, and then again and again. Due to an overabundance of projects the strategy swelled and began to crack at the seams. It has not burst yet. But the prerequisites are there, and time is working against it. Yesterday’s article in the Financial Times is a perfect confirmation of this.
“The EU and NATO are waging a war for spheres of influence in the defense industry,” the British publication writes.
The statement that NATO and the EU could fight over something would have sounded like an oxymoron until recently. But today it is a reality, although an unusual one. “There is a war for influence in the defense industry,” the Financial Times continues. “It is about who will manage the buildup of production and what impact this will have on the weapons that will be used in Europe in the future.”
This is the situation. At a NATO summit held in June 2025 the USA pushed through a decision to increase the military spending of alliance countries to 5% of the GDP by 2035. It would increase military spending by $1 trillion per year. A significant portion of this amount could have ended up in the USA if the European allies had agreed to purchase American weapons. But the allies decided otherwise. Today Brussels is actively promoting the slogan “Buy European,” and European military companies are already counting potential profits.
But it is not only about money. It is about influence, and for many years, NATO was U.S. tool for exerting that influence. The USA essentially provided military cover for its European allies, and in exchange they repaid that with political loyalty, contributing to Washington’s military operations when necessary.
But Trump turned the tables. His demand that NATO countries increase military spending played into the hands of Europe’s war party. Its main ideologues – European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and leader of the largest faction in the European Parliament Manfred Weber – gained an opportunity not only to militarize Europe, but eventually to centralize power within the EU.
How so? Take the SAFE defense program (Security Action for Europe), designed to sponsor EU countries in their accelerated militarization. SAFE involves providing EU member states with loans to purchase weapons, with suppliers set to be predominantly European manufacturers. France and Germany are already ramping up their defense industries to this end.
The problem is that an army built on credit will leave EU countries weaker – both economically and politically. Why? Because SAFE loans can be cut off at a moment’s notice if Brussels decides that a recipient country, for instance, is violating the principles of the rule of law. In other words, SAFE is a tool of blackmail and coercion in the EU’s hands against the national governments of European countries. We saw how this works with Hungary. Access to SAFE became a bargaining chip: join the defense program in exchange for lifting Hungary’s veto on an EU loan to Kiev.
Thus, Brussels has not only gained access to enormous financial flows but has also paved the way for the creation of a unified European army - for the future president of Europe. At the beginning of the year, [Manfred] Weber spoke in favor of merging the positions of President of the European Commission and President of the European Council and creating a new office - President of Europe. At the same time, he did not rule out that he might run for this post.
A straightforward chain emerges: the conflict in Ukraine gives Brussels the opportunity to wield the “Russian threat”, pushing EU countries toward militarization, which will result in their further economic and political weakening and, ultimately, in the centralization of power within the EU. This power will possess military might outside the framework of NATO and, consequently, beyond the influence of the United States.
For Washington, this is a problem, and strategically a far greater one than what is currently happening in the Middle East. The key to solving this problem lies in the Ukrainian conflict. This very conflict was what Trump placed at the center of his campaign speeches when addressing the international agenda. And, presumably, resolving the Ukrainian crisis should have been the starting point for shaping his foreign policy course.
Today, Trump admits that settling the Ukrainian conflict has proven far more difficult than he anticipated. This is hardly surprising, as the events in Ukraine have marked the final collapse of the European security architecture. Whether peace can be achieved and the balance of power restored in Europe will determine not only the future of the European region but also the success of the U.S. foreign policy strategy.
Vita Khanatayeva,
BelTA
A straightforward chain emerges: the conflict in Ukraine gives Brussels the opportunity to wield the “Russian threat”, pushing EU countries toward militarization, which will result in their further economic and political weakening and, ultimately, in the centralization of power within the EU. This power will possess military might outside the framework of NATO and, consequently, beyond the influence of the United States.
For Washington, this is a problem, and strategically a far greater one than what is currently happening in the Middle East. The key to solving this problem lies in the Ukrainian conflict. This very conflict was what Trump placed at the center of his campaign speeches when addressing the international agenda. And, presumably, resolving the Ukrainian crisis should have been the starting point for shaping his foreign policy course.
Today, Trump admits that settling the Ukrainian conflict has proven far more difficult than he anticipated. This is hardly surprising, as the events in Ukraine have marked the final collapse of the European security architecture. Whether peace can be achieved and the balance of power restored in Europe will determine not only the future of the European region but also the success of the U.S. foreign policy strategy.
Vita Khanatayeva,
BelTA
Follow us on:
