An end to subservience: how Europe must assert itself

27 January 2026

Europe is waking up to a hard truth: the safety net once provided by the United States is fraying, and the continent must finally stand on its own feet. Political paralysis, fragile militaries and rising Russian aggression demand a unified European defence—one built on genuine capability, shared strategy and renewed democratic resilience.

Europe must build an independent defence capability and stop relying on the whims of the US. This is, in a nutshell, the position of international relations researcher Yf Reykers. “The US’s attention has been shifting away from Europe and towards the Indo-Pacific for quite a while,” he says. For Europe, a Kamala Harris presidency would have meant the same reality—just communicated more competently. If anything, Reykers thinks Trump’s lack of diplomatic and rhetoric skill was the “kick up the backside” that rattled Europe out of its complacency.

Real Russian threat

Now, with war on our doorstep, Europe needs to act. “Russia’s inevitable victory is a false narrative. This war won’t end with a clear victory but more likely with some kind of settlement,” Reykers says. Intelligence services estimate a postwar Russia would need six months to regain the capacity to attack a Baltic country, and three to five years for a full-scale attack on Europe. “Putin’s gradual creep towards a Greater Russia will continue, not only with ground invasions but also through hybrid warfare, including disinformation.”

Symbolic gestures, such as pledging 5% of GDP for defence, veil the underlying problem: Europe depends on US military and political support. “The cancellation of US arms transfers to Ukraine underlines that we can no longer rely on them.” Yet, Europe is limited in terms of the size and equipment of its armies, its military-industrial complex, and most importantly its political and civic will.

Europe unfit for purpose

“We don’t have a strategy for Ukraine, also because defence remains a national prerogative under EU treaties,” Reykers explains. Being a European Council matter, defence requires unanimous intergovernmental decisions. The process can be blocked by a single veto, often by Viktor Orbán, a man close to both Putin and corruption allegations. “The decision-making process is not fit for purpose; it’s like picking a restaurant with 27 friends.”

Despite recent tinkering, such as creating a European Defence Commissioner role to oversee industrial defence investment and coordination, Reykers thinks we need broader reform. “Ideally, we’d move to qualified majority voting, but this is implausible since it requires a unanimously approved treaty change.”

An expanded and expanding EU also comes with a growing diversity of perspectives and priorities. “We need to rethink the institutional architecture,” Reykers continues. “Several core member states could form a European Security Council, which sets the strategic direction for the union as a whole.” In the short term, he sees smaller coalitions of European countries galvanised by converging national interests as more likely.

Diplomatic and economic heft

Russia’s war on Ukraine has also shown that, while Europe is economically powerful enough to provide the lion’s share of financial support, it cannot fill the gap left by the US. “France, the United Kingdom and Germany have increased their military allocations sharply, but not to the extent of the Nordic countries. Other states, such as Spain and Italy, have lowered their support. Even combined, the European nations can’t match US capabilities in arms, equipment and readiness.” Europe is held back by its “national reflex,” where each country tries “to minimise impact on national budgets and benefit their own industries.” The result is fragmentation and an incoherent group of relatively small countries.

Reykers calls for a unified European defence industry, or at least much bigger consortia, with joint procurement to create scale and foster innovation. More European integration is the only way forward—yet still not sufficient on its own. With the US hanging up its global sheriff boots, Europe has to “look to other countries that are also affected. We have to invest more in striking up and extending security partnerships with Canada, Australia, Japan, India, et cetera.” The EU’s diplomatic capacity should not be underestimated, Reykers says, especially when combined with its economic heft. “Governments need to do a better job communicating what the EU is achieving and how they benefit from that.”

“Governments need to do a better job communicating what the EU is achieving and how they benefit from that.”

Yf Reykers

Security over defence

Reforming NATO to function without the US will also be crucial. However, recent defence spending targets are not, on their own, a panacea. “There’s a risk of creative accounting and countries outbidding each other.” And there are other problems, too, such as “the critical dependence on US arms manufacturers and military enablers such as intelligence. We also don’t have European alternatives to cloud computing systems.”

To be autonomous and strategically assertive, Europe needs to guarantee its own security. “But you have to understand security much more broadly, in terms of societal resilience. Think hospitals, infrastructure, food supply chains, communications channels and so forth.” We are not, and will not be, adequately prepared for a direct military attack, but Reykers thinks that an unlikely scenario. More likely is a hybrid attack—and he is equally sceptical about Europe’s ability to withstand this.

Societal resilience

“We’re in a period of geopolitical uncertainty, and we should be more concerned about societal resilience,” he says. The pandemic has exposed how feeble sensemaking and civic spirit is in a hyper-individualistic culture. “Universities have a big role to play there too. Russian disinformation campaigns are undermining our democracies. Where do people get their information? How does that influence how they vote and behave?”

In Reykers’ view, “We as a university have to help make sense of the context we live in and educate society – not just students – in how to deal with information.” Societal resilience is more than merely rallying behind common economic and security goals. “We should look towards our belief in democracy, liberalism and multilateralism. We have to invest in a sense of community; we have to be ready to help each other.”

Text: Florian Raith
Photography: Philip Driessen

“We have to invest in a sense of community; we have to be ready to help each other.”