Non è mai stata un’operazione di beneficenza: l’Europa ha beneficiato di Stati Uniti forti? Non dovremmo credere a questa falsa narrazione. In effetti, gli americani non hanno dato nulla agli europei

What comes after the old transatlantic alliance? This is one of the topics at the Munich Security Conference, which is now beginning. Moritz Weiss, political scientist and expert on security policy, argues here why Europe must first free itself from a false guilt complex.

—

Europe suffers from a misunderstanding. Whenever Donald Trump threatens to end American protection, the continent falls into a strange, almost submissive self-criticism: we were too comfortable, we did too little, we took advantage of the US. In the words of Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz, we were ‘free riders’. Anyone who accepts this narrative, which is propagated primarily by Trump but is in fact false, has lost the battle for their own independence before it has even begun. Strategic autonomy is not just a question of defence budgets – it begins with intellectual emancipation from a narrative that is simply false: the fairy tale of transatlantic handouts.

The US presence in Europe was never an act of charity, but a strategic investment in global hegemony. Washington gave nothing to the Europeans for free. With its military umbrella over Europe, the White House bought political obedience and a geopolitical base from which to shape world politics according to its own ideas. America was not being taken advantage of; it was a functional symbiosis: Europe got admittedly cheap stability, the US got the undisputed leadership of the ‘free world’.

The fact that Europe often finds itself militarily exposed today is not a historical oversight, but the result of a division of labour actively demanded by Washington. One need only think of Madeleine Albright’s famous ‘three D’s’ from 1998: ‘no decoupling, no duplication, and no discrimination’.

European armed forces may exist, but they must not decouple from NATO, duplicate any of NATO’s military capabilities, or discriminate against any member of the alliance. This roughly describes the status quo today. The US made it unmistakably clear that it would not tolerate any independent European leadership capabilities that could challenge NATO’s monopoly. And when the Europeans sat down at the table among themselves, the UK, acting as an extension of US interests, ensured that everyone stayed on track.

At the same time, the US secured a huge, stable sales market through its Foreign Military Sales programme. Anyone who buys US weapons is not just buying hardware; they are buying decades of dependence on software updates and spare parts. Washington did not want an autonomous Europe – it wanted and got a reliable junior partner.

The imbalance in Trump’s narrative is particularly evident in the case of so-called strategic enablers, such as satellite reconnaissance. Yes, Europe is dependent on the US in this area. But the fact that the US owns these satellites has nothing to do with Europe. Washington maintains them in its own interest, so that it can intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time.

From an economic point of view, intelligence data and satellite images are not consumable goods. When the US shares this information with its allies, it costs them virtually nothing extra. It creates European dependence, but no financial burden for US taxpayers. To sell this data as ‘alms’ for which Europe must now repay a historical debt is a deliberate distortion of the facts.

Trump claims that the US is the world’s ‘cash cow’. But he overlooks one thing: if he terminates the existing partnership with Europe, he also frees the US’s allies from their obligation to follow. Those who no longer offer protection lose their right to have a say. If the US no longer wants to bear the costs of hegemony, it also loses its claim to almost automatic European approval of its plans. Europe does not have to ‘stay behind after class’ like a naughty schoolboy, as the Trump camp puts it. It must recognise that the basis for business has simply ceased to exist.

The biggest obstacle to a sovereign Europe at present is not a lack of tanks, but rather the clinging to an unfounded guilt complex. Those who accept the narrative of European guilt negotiate from a position of weakness – whether in relation to NATO, Russia’s war of aggression or even Trump’s favourite project, tariffs. 

In the end, it’s like a long-term relationship that fails: when one partner leaves and claims that they have only been taken advantage of all these years, the worst reaction is to agree with them in tears and apologise. No partner will come back because of that. You will only get over the break-up when you realise that there were good reasons why you were together and that both partners benefited from the relationship. And if you want to find independence after the break-up, you mustn’t make yourself smaller than you are.

Exactly. While we did good togheter, EU owes nothing to US.

The UK was paying back its debt for US military “aid” during WW2 until 2006. They paid for every. Single. Tank. And. Piece of equipment!

The Americans through their military allowed us to spend less on our militaries and more on social programs than we would have otherwise. I think that’s pretty much undeniable. But now it’s time to get our shit together more and have a strong and respected military (in addition to keeping all the things that give our citizens better lives than those in America) and not be dependent on them anymore

Indeed, it’s just like in the ads—they create a narrative that without this thing, things will get worse (or, well, bad), and then they sell it at a high price and on a recurring basis.

Thirty years have passed since the collapse of the USSR, and yet there are even more U.S. bases in Europe now.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. is secretly propping up Russia right now, just to make it easier to scare Europeans with a new threat. Naturally, all while making it seem like Europe can’t manage without America.

It’s a classic good cop, bad cop game.

I’d start with, “US saved Europe” during WW2 mantra.

Sure it did, after financing the Nazis and selling them a host of chemicals. Then coming in to fight 2 years after war started and collecting its gold when it left

agree with the sentiment, but man, fuck Die Zeit and their anti-GDPR “pay-us-so-we-won’t-track-you” practices. It’s ironic that they should talk about European sovereignty while scoffing one of the most important pieces of legislation of the last decade.

They definitely gave something, the question is was it worth the tradeoff?

Bretton-Woods system 1945-1971 was favorizing U.S. economy over European members. It was a silent understanding: you give USA money, USA gives you protection. However the system broke down when European countries decided that USA is stealing too much from them.

Obama already said that they are pivoting to Asia. That was how many years ago? Now everyone makes big eyes 👀 when it is actually happening. Americans can be stretched out everywhere in the world. They are setting new priorities 

Would the US have spent less on defense during the Cold war if they weren’t in alliance with Western Europe?

That is the real question.

I seriously doubt it. Vietnam and Korean war were not to do with Europe and expensive.

NATO militaries combined at peak had about 5 million personnel. Of this about 2 to 3 million were American. (Post Korean war nearer 2 million.)

It’s not like NATO (non US) didn’t contribute.

Without those millions of European Nato troops and equipment, to compete with Warsaw Pact the US would have had to spend even more!

Allowing free access to the European markets for American tech companies has destroyed europes own tech sector, culture, economic future and sovereignty

Yes, America gave nothing, frankly, except security the Europeans groveled for. Security is overrated, how are your Russian language skills?
It’s time Europe build a nuclear force and fund their defenses to become independent. Independence is where security comes from. Security Guarantees seem to not be iron clad – ask Ukraine.

The US totally benefited from this as much if not more

I mean, probably not, but let us not forget the military folks who fought in WW2 (I know, the U.S didn’t want to really, but got dragged into it) The folks who was apart of that shit, shouldn’t be talked down upon.

I might dislike the U.S, but their servicemen and service women, i will always speak highly of, i respect countries militaries to a degree.

Big surprise! americans are all mouth. They give nothing and take everything. So now is time to let them deal with themselves and see how a country of deeply selfish people will progress.

I disagree. The Americans gave the Europeans time. Time to rebuilt, re-arm, and get organized for the sleeping giant that was Russia.

Europe took the dividends instead, and now has to play catch up.