NGRNIn a sharply worded Der Spiegel commentary, the argument is that Europe has spent the early months of Donald Trump’s second term trying to manage the United States rather than prepare for it: lots of charm, careful language, and deals meant to keep the relationship calm.
The problem, Der Spiegel suggests, is that “calm” can look like weakness.
Appeasement has a price
The piece describes a pattern: European leaders try to flatter and accommodate Washington, hoping to avoid confrontation. But each concession simply invites the next test.
In this telling, Trump treats trade measures as a lever – and once Europe accepts pressure on trade, the boundary shifts to something more fundamental: territory and sovereignty. Greenland becomes the symbol. Not because it is likely to change hands, but because the demand itself is a stress test of Europe’s backbone.
Der Spiegel’s warning is blunt: if Europe reacts to pressure by smoothing things over, it teaches Trump (and others) that coercion works.
Europe was built as a peace project – but the world has changed
The article then makes a bigger, uncomfortable point. The EU was founded as a miracle of post-war reconciliation: rules, compromise, and dialogue replacing violence. It succeeded beyond what earlier Europeans would have imagined.
Yet the world Europe is living in now, Der Spiegel argues, resembles a “jungle of empires” – a competition of major powers that mix security, economics, technology and influence. In that world, a purely “post-modern” Europe becomes vulnerable.
So the EU faces a paradox: to survive as a peace project, it may need to develop harder instincts – the capacity to defend territory, to use economic strength as leverage, and to build industrial muscle so that it cannot be blackmailed.
Der Spiegel calls these tasks “Herculean”. Europe has not faced a challenge of this scale since the Second World War. The old habit – explaining why decisive change is “impossible” – has become a luxury Europe can no longer afford.
A political opening: even the far right is uncomfortable
A practical observation follows. Trump’s behaviour makes it harder for European ultra-right parties to sell their closeness to him at home. When Washington looks openly transactional, “alignment” starts to look like dependence.
In other words: there is a rare moment when big change may be more politically feasible than it was a few years ago.
What Der Spiegel says Europe should do
The core of the article is a checklist – not of ideals, but of measures.
1) Nuclear deterrence: stop assuming the US umbrella is automatic
Europe, the article argues, cannot treat American nuclear protection as guaranteed. It should strengthen its own deterrence.
It points first to France: Paris could extend its nuclear umbrella more explicitly to European partners. If that is blocked politically, Der Spiegel floats a more radical fallback: a “coalition of the willing” led by Germany, capable of building a stronger European nuclear posture.
The point is not technical details; it is strategic psychology: deterrence must be credible even if Washington is unreliable.
2) Standardise Europe’s armies: end the weapons “zoo”
Europe’s military weakness is not only the size of budgets; it is fragmentation.
Der Spiegel contrasts the US with a relatively compact set of weapons systems and procurement choices, against Europe’s sprawling catalogue of platforms. The result is a logistics nightmare: spare parts, ammunition, maintenance, training – all multiplied.
The remedy proposed is political and bureaucratic: standardisation, and an empowered figure (an EU-level “armaments commissioner”) who can force prioritisation and push joint procurement decisions, however uncomfortable they may be.
3) Build a core security alliance inside Europe
The article calls for a tighter group of the most capable European states to carry continental security: Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Poland – and ideally Ukraine.
Ukraine is described not as a recipient of help, but as a pillar: the largest and battle-tested army in Europe, forged by modern war. In Der Spiegel’s logic, any serious European security architecture that excludes Ukraine is strategically incomplete.
4) Fix decision-making: unity is a weapon
Der Spiegel argues that the US sees Europe as fragmented and sentimental – too many voices, too little discipline. In a world of threats, Europe must be pragmatic.
Two reforms stand out in the piece:
- clearer leadership at the top of EU decision-making (even merging key roles to avoid split authority);
- ending unanimity in foreign policy – because one government can hold the entire bloc hostage.
The argument is simple: a bloc that cannot decide cannot deter.
5) Use economic power as leverage – because Europe has leverage
Europe is not helpless. It is a market giant, and Der Spiegel urges leaders to treat that as political power.
The article points to areas where Europe can reduce dependence or apply pressure with lower pain:
- recalibrating links where the US benefits most from European consumers;
- shifting reserves and financial exposure where possible;
- reducing reliance on the dollar over time by expanding euro-based transactions.
The theme is reciprocity: if Washington uses trade and finance as weapons, Europe must be able to respond.
6) Technology: Europe needs an “Airbus moment” for the AI era
Der Spiegel is blunt that Europe trails the US in digital platforms and AI. But it argues this is not fate – it is policy.
It uses the Airbus story as inspiration: Europe once lagged far behind the US in civil aviation, then built a consortium backed by political will and industrial strategy – and changed the balance.
The message for today: Europe must do something similar in critical technologies, especially AI, or remain dependent on American firms and American political moods.
The bottom line
Der Spiegel’s piece is a survival manual for a harsher era. Its central claim is that Europe has tried to buy safety through politeness – and is discovering that politeness can be mistaken for permission.
If the EU wants to remain what it was created to be – a zone of peace and stability – it must also become something it avoided becoming: a strategic power that can protect its territory, command its industry, and use its economic weight without flinching.