The European elites are trying to keep the European Union relevant in a world in which China’s star keeps rising and the United States seems to distance itself from its old ally.
The war in Ukraine has painfully exposed the Europeans are totally dependent on the United States for military protection against Russia, which nowadays by many considered China’s junior partner.
Contrary to China and the United States the EU block does not have its own nuclear deterrent, social media platforms, search engines, space based navigation systems, and AI platforms.
European (Dutch) NATO chief Mark Rutte understands that European countries are junior partners of the United States. ‘Teflon Mark’ even referred to president Trump as ‘Daddy ‘.
So why the Europeans still consider US good versus China bad? This question is formulated slightly different in this post on X :
“Nato’s Mark Rutte says China is a threat to NATO. I could be wrong but I can’t remember a time when China has threatened to take over a NATO country. But Trump repeatedly threatens to take over Greenland. Why is Rutte silent?”
In search for answers, I consulted three AI platforms and instructed them to summarize their answers in 270 characters. Here’s what I got:
1 Google AI:
“Rutte uses a “Trump whisperer” strategy, agreeing that Arctic security is a priority while avoiding the sovereignty dispute. He views China as a systemic threat to global order, whereas he treats Trump’s Greenland rhetoric as a strategic goal to manage diplomatically.”
2 ChatGPT:
“NATO calls China a “threat” in a strategic sense (military buildup, global influence), not invasion. Trump’s Greenland remarks are seen as rhetoric, not policy. Rutte avoids NATO intervening in disputes between allies, leaving Denmark to respond.”
3 Deepseek:”NATO sees China as a systemic rival due to cyber threats, military buildup, and ties with Russia—a long-term strategic challenge. Trump’s past comments on Greenland were an internal diplomatic incident, managed quietly to preserve alliance cohesion and the crucial U.S. partnership.”
In short: Europeans see China as a long term threat, while the United States is still perceived as an ally.
Former US Marine and geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic has a completely different perspective. Key Pillars of Berletic’s Argument:
The “Pivot to Asia” Bottleneck:
Berletic argues that the U.S. military-industrial base is overstretched. To maintain a credible strategy of containing China, the U.S. must shift naval assets, long-range strike capabilities, and diplomatic focus to the Pacific. This strategic realignment is constrained by limited industrial capacity, logistical bottlenecks, and the simultaneous commitments in Europe, highlighting the structural pressures on U.S. power rather than a purely ideological choice.
European Subsidization of U.S. Interests:
Berletic contends that Washington seeks to have European nations increase defense spending and take a leading role in managing the Ukraine conflict. This is not merely about cost-sharing; it is part of a broader structural logic: by having Europe bear the brunt of Russia’s containment, the U.S. can focus resources on China. At the same time, this dynamic exposes Europe to economic and military strain, a risk often overlooked in mainstream narratives.
Proxy Warfare Dynamics:
Drawing on analyses such as the 2019 RAND Corporation paper “Extending Russia,” Berletic frames Europe’s involvement in Ukraine as part of a strategy to overextend and destabilize Russia indirectly. The conflict functions as a form of proxy pressure, where European economic and military commitments serve U.S. strategic objectives, even if Europe’s engagement is also shaped by its own security calculations.
The “Reverse Kissinger” Strategy:
Berletic notes that some analysts see a “Reverse Kissinger” approach—attempting to draw Russia away from China—but he is skeptical that the U.S. seeks a genuine long-term partnership. Instead, he views U.S. strategy as a tactical effort to neutralize Russia’s threat temporarily, securing space to concentrate on Beijing. Any engagement with Russia is, in his view, instrumental rather than cooperative, and the broader strategic priority remains the containment of China.
Explanation in the style of NATO chief and Trump whisperer Mark Rutte:
If ‘Dad’ turns out to be a child abuser, then it is high time that his children grow up quickly and leave the parental home.
Now that it has become painfully clear that the strategic interests of the United States of America and those of the European Union are not identical, the question arises which of the three options (fight, flight, freeze) the European elite will choose:
– To become strategically independent from the US.
– Continue on the current course and let the US determine what is and what is not in the interest of the Europeans.
– Not come to a common strategy and let the EU fall apart.
It is very doubtful whether the 27 EU member states will be able to develop a joint strategy and new security doctrine. Pessimists fear that the European continent is facing a century of humiliation.
January 6, 2026