Donald Trump's presidency has undergone a dramatic reversal, morphing from a promised era of disengagement into a period of aggressive and unpredictable military interventionism. This shift has left European allies, including the UK, watching with mounting alarm as the United States increasingly acts like a rogue superpower.
From Campaign Pledge to Military Escalation
Elected in 2016 on a popular pledge to end America's "forever wars," Trump's initial term saw moves to withdraw from foreign conflicts. However, these were often executed through ill-conceived and irresponsible policies. The 2019 sudden withdrawal from Syria betrayed Kurdish allies and allowed ISIS remnants to regroup. The 2020 deal with the Taliban, which excluded the Afghan government, set the stage for the chaotic 2021 pull-out.
Now, in a stark about-face, the Trump administration is throwing its weight around the globe with renewed vigour. The catalyst was the ambush in Palmyra, Syria last month that killed two US soldiers. In response, the US launched overnight bombing raids against ISIS targets. This action, while targeting a persistent threat, was justified simply as retribution, highlighting a reckless new logic in Washington's approach.
A Pattern of Unilateral Aggression
The Syria strikes are not an isolated incident. They form part of a concerning pattern of unilateral action:
- In Nigeria, US forces have attacked Islamic militants following assaults on Christians.
- In Venezuela, Trump ordered the abduction of head of state Nicolás Maduro, accompanied by fanciful claims about seizing the country's oil wealth—a plan major firms like Exxon have rejected.
- Threats against Denmark and Greenland continue, with Trump determined to "acquire" the autonomous territory, a move that risks catastrophic consequences for European security and NATO's cohesion.
This interventionist spree marks a departure even from Trump's first term, which was capped by the January 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. That act may have whetted an appetite for overseas shows of force, with Iran's parliament speaker now threatening retaliation against the "delusional" president.
Europe's Dilemma and a Potential Path Forward
For Europe, the unfolding situation presents a grave dilemma. The continent is divided between confronting Trump directly—and risking his volatile ire—or acquiescing and hoping for the best. The UK and its European partners urgently need a credible plan of action as they face an increasingly unstable treaty ally.
There may, however, be a third path. 2026 could become an inflection point for European defence sovereignty. Britain and France, potentially backed by German investment, could accelerate cooperation on a truly independent nuclear deterrent. Both nations are already developing replacements for existing submarine- and air-launched systems; joint development would save significant time, money, and political capital.
A new European nuclear shield, independent of US warheads, would achieve several strategic aims. It would silence critics within Trump's MAGA movement who accuse Europe of freeloading, strengthen the continent's hand in defending allies like Denmark and Greenland, and send a clear signal to adversaries like Vladimir Putin that Europe is serious about its own security.
Such a shield would not cure what appears to be Trump's addiction to overseas military adventures, driven largely by the whims of one man and the far-right ideologues egging him on. But it might finally ensure that Europe is no longer wholly at the mercy of them.
