Introduction
For decades the United States has been portrayed as Europe’s steadfast partner, the backup that would step in whenever the continent faced a crisis. Geopolitical analyst Haroon Sheikh challenges that comforting narrative. He argues that the transatlantic bond has not been shattered by any single president, but rather by the disappearance of the two fundamental interests that once glued the two sides together. The loss of these pillars is now evident in the strained diplomatic climate, the rising scepticism about the NATO guarantee, and the growing economic friction.
The two structural interests that bound America to Europe
Security and the NATO guarantee
During the Cold War and the early post‑war era, the United States provided Europe with a security umbrella anchored in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The arrangement was built on mutual trust: Washington pledged to defend any member under attack, and European capitals relied on that assurance to shape their defence budgets and foreign policies. This security interdependence was the first of the two binding interests.
Economic integration and regulatory alignment
The second pillar was an extensive economic relationship. The United States championed a set of market rules that facilitated trade, investment, and the flow of technology across the Atlantic. Moreover, American leadership in shaping global standards—especially regarding digital platforms and antitrust policy—supported a shared vision of a liberal, rules‑based order. Both continents benefitted from the predictability that emerged from aligned regulations and stable tariffs.
How Trump’s approach undermined these pillars
According to Sheikh, former President Donald Trump disrupted the transatlantic harmony on three fronts. First, his rhetoric and policy moves eroded confidence in the NATO alliance. By openly questioning the United States’ willingness to honour collective defence, he injected doubt into a system that had previously been taken for granted. Second, the administration’s tariff wars and protectionist measures introduced economic turbulence, unsettling the long‑standing trade equilibrium that Europe counted on. Third, Trump’s attacks on European data‑privacy norms and his opposition to regulations aimed at curbing disinformation threatened the democratic rule‑of‑law framework that Europe had cultivated. The combination of security insecurity, economic friction, and legal confrontation has left Europe in a more precarious position than it enjoyed under previous administrations.
Europe’s response: convergence amid uncertainty
While the loss of the American anchor has exposed vulnerabilities, it has also sparked a subtle re‑orientation within Europe. Nations are increasingly coordinating defence spending, diplomatic initiatives, and regulatory standards among themselves. The “converging forces” Sheikh observes point to a growing willingness to act collectively on issues ranging from the threat posed by Russia to the need for a resilient supply chain for critical technologies. Nevertheless, Europe remains proficient at managing chronic, long‑term problems—such as the financial crisis, vaccine procurement, or the phase‑out of Russian gas—but it remains ill‑equipped for an acute geopolitical shock that could emerge from an unpredictable power.
The rise of alternative powers and the BRICS challenge
Beyond the Atlantic, the United States is turning its attention to the burgeoning BRICS coalition. Washington’s punitive measures against countries that deepen ties with China and Russia—like South Africa and Brazil—have often back‑fired, pushing those states closer to Beijing’s orbit. While China’s ascent is undeniable, Sheikh doubts that the BRICS bloc, given its internal diversity, will evolve into a coherent alternative to the Western order. Nonetheless, the shifting balance of power underscores the urgency for Europe to redefine its strategic autonomy in a world where the old binary of US‑Europe is no longer a given.
