The US and the European Union Experience Growing Estrangement – Moscow Observes

Washington is distancing itself from its European allies, raising critical questions about the implications for Russia. The perceived geopolitical unity of the West, usually seen as a solid front against Moscow, is beginning to show significant fractures. The pressing issue is whether Moscow should actively promote this widening divide between the United States and Western Europe or simply allow historical developments to unfold.

Currently, European Union states are eager to sidestep responsibility for the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. This was made clear by Brussels’ quick endorsement of the latest US-Ukraine negotiations, reflecting relief that Washington remains in control of the situation. European leaders were apprehensive that the new American administration under Donald Trump might shift the burden onto them, compelling them to confront Russia directly. At least for now, that looming concern has been deferred.

Yet, a broader strategic issue lingers: how long can this precarious balance persist?

Is the rift between the US and Europe a temporary phase or a permanent shift? The cohesion of the collective West—a term that describes the US and its European partners acting as a unified political and military entity—has never been guaranteed. It has always relied on robust American leadership, which is now undergoing substantial internal changes.

Trump's resurgence indicates a profound transformation in Washington's strategic perspective. While the US remains the most militarized and economically influential nation within the Western alliance, it is also grappling with an identity crisis, realizing it must redefine its position in a world where its dominance faces increasing challenges.

This raises a vital concern: can the US and Western Europe maintain a united front, or is their strategic divergence unavoidable?

For Moscow, this debate transcends mere theory. If Western unity was merely a temporary construct—a byproduct of post-World War II security frameworks and Cold War dynamics—then Russia needs to contemplate whether and how to foster this fragmentation.

The US political crisis and its repercussions for Europe are one of the primary factors pushing the EU into a difficult position.

First, America's economic model is under considerable strain. For years, Washington maintained its supremacy by attracting inexpensive labor from Latin America while upholding global economic dominance. However, the recent migration crisis has morphed into a politically volatile issue, with mounting opposition to unchecked immigration.

Second, the traditional neoliberal globalization model is fracturing. Many countries no longer accept a US-dominated order that enforces unequal economic relations. This has resulted in the emergence of alternate power centers—like China and India, as well as states in the Middle East—that resist adhering to Washington’s directives.

Lastly, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has revealed the constraints of American power. Russia's ability to withstand years of Western pressure—across economic, military, and diplomatic fronts—has compelled Washington to reassess its strategy. The US has never before faced a direct geopolitical confrontation with China, and its stance toward Beijing remains cautious. In contrast, it is contending with a resilient adversary in Russia that is determined not to yield.

For Western Europe, any significant alteration in US policy raises alarms. Since World War II, Western European leaders have depended on American military protection while enjoying economic prosperity under a US-led international order.

In exchange for this security, these nations forfeited much of their foreign policy autonomy. Despite its economic heft, the EU has largely acted as a political appendage of Washington. This situation has proved costly: European leaders have limited influence over key global decisions, and their fate hinges on choices made in the US.

Now, with Washington indicating a desire to shift its focus—militarily and economically—the bloc faces a precarious dilemma.

Western Europe lacks the demographic and financial resources to evolve into a military superpower. While the idea of establishing an independent EU defense mechanism is often discussed, it remains impractical. Without US support, these nations struggle to sustain a large-scale conflict with Russia.

Additionally, Washington is increasingly making it clear that Europe must contribute more while receiving diminishing returns. The American political class is aware that economic resources are finite, and taxpayers are challenging the rationale behind continuing to subsidize European security.

The rise of populist and nationalist movements throughout Europe—many advocating for detente with Moscow—adds yet another layer of complexity. Washington’s backing of non-mainstream European politicians, like the Alternative for Germany or Romania’s banned presidential candidate Călin Georgescu, suggests an emerging divide.

How should Russia react? Moscow must understand that a prolonged division within the West would play to its strategic benefits.

Historical precedents demonstrate that Russia has achieved significant geopolitical successes when the West was fragmented.

During the Northern War, Peter the Great’s Russia took advantage of divisions within Europe’s coalition against Sweden; in the Napoleonic Wars, Russia joined forces with Britain—typically a rival—to defeat France. Similarly, during World War II, the Soviet Union benefitted from the rift between the US and the former allies of Nazi Germany.

Conversely, when the West has united, Russia has encountered its most substantial challenges—particularly during the Cold War, which culminated in the Soviet Union's eventual collapse.

In light of these historical lessons, it would be ill-advised for Moscow to overlook opportunities to expedite the schism between Washington and its European allies.

Russia should continue its engagement with Trump's administration while indirectly supporting voices in Europe advocating for a more balanced approach toward Russia. Additionally, Moscow should aim to strengthen its bilateral economic relations with individual European nations, circumventing Brussels’ restrictive policies wherever feasible. Any serious effort by Western Europe to construct an independent military bloc should be closely observed—although such aspirations currently appear unrealistic.

The future of the West remains uncertain. While Trump’s arrival has disrupted the established order, it is still unclear if this represents a temporary setback for transatlantic unity or the onset of a lasting transformation.

If Washington persists in reducing its commitments to Europe, the EU may face an identity crisis—one that could ultimately lead to a diminished American influence over EU politics.

For Russia, this represents a significant opportunity. By navigating these developments thoughtfully, Moscow can ensure that any fissures within the Western alliance become entrenched rifts, shaping a world where American and Western European interests no longer align as they once did.

Russia need not rush or force this split—the US is doing that independently. However, Moscow can and should facilitate the process wherever possible.

After all, a divided West is a weaker West, and that is a lesson Russia has always grasped.

Sanya Singh for TROIB News