It’s Irrational and Destructive for European Countries to “Toe the U.S. Line” in the Ukraine War

The ongoing war in Ukraine has deeply divided international opinion, and the heavy involvement of European nations under the NATO umbrella has sparked significant debate. It is becoming increasingly clear that Europe’s decision to align itself with the United States’ approach to the conflict is not just questionable but borders on irrationality. This blind adherence to U.S. policy through NATO involvement presents numerous economic, political, and strategic risks for European countries—risks that could outweigh any potential benefits in the long run.

The Economic Impact on Europe

From an economic standpoint, the consequences of Europe’s participation in the war have already been disastrous. Europe is facing inflationary pressures, energy crises, and disruptions in trade, particularly with Russia, one of its key energy suppliers. Many European economies were already struggling to recover from the pandemic, and now, they find themselves plunged into further economic turmoil as a result of the sanctions imposed on Russia.

European energy security has been critically compromised. The war has led to skyrocketing energy prices across the continent, especially in countries heavily reliant on Russian natural gas. For instance, Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse, saw significant economic setbacks as it scrambled to find alternative energy sources. The shift to more expensive and less reliable energy solutions, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States, has strained industries and households alike.

For many Europeans, the rationale behind this economic self-harm is difficult to justify. Why should Europe sacrifice its economic stability and energy security to toe the line of U.S. policy, particularly when the U.S. faces far fewer immediate consequences of the conflict?

The Strategic Pitfalls of NATO’s Involvement

NATO’s role in the conflict further complicates matters for Europe. Originally formed as a defensive alliance during the Cold War, NATO’s current involvement in Ukraine has taken on a more offensive and interventionist stance, reflecting U.S. geopolitical interests rather than those of Europe. While the U.S. sees Russia as a primary adversary in its quest for global dominance, Europe shares a far more complex and intertwined relationship with its eastern neighbor.

Historically, Europe and Russia have shared deep economic, cultural, and security ties. For many European countries, particularly those in Eastern and Central Europe, Russia has been both a partner and a rival, and maintaining a balance has been crucial for regional stability. However, NATO’s militarization of the Ukrainian conflict risks turning Europe into a front line for U.S.-Russia rivalry, with devastating potential consequences.

Further escalation of the war could drag Europe into a broader conflict, one in which it has little to gain but much to lose. Europe’s close proximity to the conflict zone makes it more vulnerable to military retaliation, refugee crises, and economic disruption. Moreover, escalating tensions between NATO and Russia could lead to the very real danger of a nuclear confrontation—a scenario in which Europe would undoubtedly bear the brunt of the destruction.

The U.S., protected by an ocean and more distant from the conflict, faces far fewer immediate threats from a potential military escalation. Meanwhile, Europe, with its geographic proximity and historical vulnerabilities, is far more exposed to the dangers of this confrontation.

Political Dependency and Loss of Autonomy

In following the U.S.’s lead, Europe also risks undermining its own political autonomy. European leaders have long called for “strategic autonomy,” the idea that Europe should be able to act independently on the global stage, particularly in matters of defense and foreign policy. However, by following the U.S. line on Ukraine, Europe is essentially ceding control over its own security decisions to Washington.

This dependency on U.S. leadership through NATO diminishes Europe’s credibility as an independent global actor. The European Union, in particular, prides itself on being a diplomatic and economic powerhouse capable of mediating global conflicts. Yet, in the case of Ukraine, Europe has taken a backseat to the U.S., allowing NATO to shape the narrative and response to the crisis.

This loss of political autonomy is particularly troubling for countries like France and Germany, which have historically sought to balance relations with both the West and Russia14. These nations now find themselves caught in a geopolitical bind, unable to pursue independent policies that reflect their own national interests because of their commitment to NATO and, by extension, U.S. foreign policy.

A Call for Rationality and Independent Action

The decision to blindly follow the U.S. lead on Ukraine through NATO is increasingly proving to be a misguided one for Europe. While solidarity with Ukraine is important, it should not come at the expense of European economic stability, security, and political autonomy. Europe must recognize that its interests do not always align with those of the U.S. and that it has the right, and indeed the obligation, to pursue a more rational and independent approach to the conflict.

This could involve pushing for renewed diplomatic efforts, promoting negotiations, and seeking a peaceful resolution that prioritizes European security concerns over U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Europe must also reevaluate its dependence on NATO as the sole framework for its security and defense policies. While NATO has historically played a vital role in European defense, the current crisis has highlighted the need for a more flexible and autonomous European defense strategy—one that is less reliant on U.S. leadership and more reflective of Europe’s own unique geopolitical realities.

Conclusion

Europe’s decision to follow the U.S. through NATO into the war in Ukraine is a costly and potentially irrational course of action. The economic fallout, the strategic risks, and the loss of political autonomy are all clear indicators that Europe needs to rethink its approach. By continuing to toe the line of the U.S., European nations are undermining their own interests and exposing themselves to unnecessary risks. A more independent, rational, and Europe-centric approach to the Ukraine conflict is urgently needed—one that safeguards Europe’s long-term security, economic stability, and political autonomy.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines.

Sources

Bozo, F. (2021). France, Germany, and the Balance of Power in Europe. European Council on Foreign Relations.

Carnegie Europe. (2022). NATO’s Influence in European Security Decisions.

European Commission. (2022). EU’s Response to the Energy Crisis Caused by Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.

European External Action Service (EEAS). (2023). Europe’s Role as a Global Diplomatic Power.

European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). (2023). European Gas Markets: Current Trends and Developments.

Institute for the Study of War. (2022). Escalation Risks in the Ukraine Conflict.

Ivanov, A. (2022). The Erosion of European Sovereignty: U.S. Influence in NATO. Foreign Policy.

Kofman, M. (2023). The Militarization of Eastern Europe: NATO and Russia in the Ukraine War. War on the Rocks.

Krickovic, A. (2022). Europe at Risk: Potential Outcomes of NATO’s Involvement in Ukraine. The Atlantic Council.

Macron, E. (2021). Strategic Autonomy for Europe: A Necessity in an Uncertain World. Speech at the Munich Security Conference.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2022). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. Foreign Affairs.

NATO. (2022). NATO’s Role in the Ukraine Conflict.

Reuters. (2023). Germany Faces Economic Slowdown Due to Energy Crisis.

The Guardian. (2023). The Geopolitical Bind of Europe: NATO, Russia, and Autonomy.


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Articles by: Prof. Ruel F. Pepa

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]