
Europe should be standing up to Trump and Putin – instead it is mirroring them
From Helsinki to Lisbon, people are suddenly experiencing the same existential unease. Trade wars, defence threats and military aggression don't respect borders. More and more Europeans now recognise that their small, individual nations cannot withstand simultaneous pressure from both Washington and Moscow. They find themselves caught between economic coercion and military intimidation.
Recent Eurobarometer data confirm the shift: 74% of Europeans now view EU membership as a positive thing – the highest level of support ever recorded.
This is a historic opportunity. And yet, EU and national leaders remain paralysed – unable, or unwilling, to convert this public support and shared urgency into political momentum for reducing Europe's dependence on US military guarantees and economic shelter.
This is the real tragedy: Europe's governments no longer practise the very ideals they preach. Though the EU still speaks the language of multilateralism and climate leadership, its policy direction and that of most of its member states increasingly mirror Trump's.
On migration, the EU's new pact on migration and asylum reframes asylum as a security risk, echoing Trump's immigration crackdown. On climate, Ursula von der Leyen's European Commission has quietly dismantled key green deal initiatives and delayed critical legislation, in a deregulatory shift reminiscent of Trump's EPA rollbacks. Civil society is also under mounting pressure. Just as Trump has targeted non-profits and dissenters, the conservative European People's party (EPP) – von der Leyen's political 'family' – has launched an unprecedented assault on NGOs, threatening their funding and legitimacy. Even fundamental rights are at risk. The EU's response to Hungary's ban on Pride marches and expansion of surveillance powers has been tepid at best – tacitly tolerating democratic backsliding within its own ranks.
But perhaps the most dangerous convergence lies in how power is exercised. Trump governs by executive fiat, sidelining Congress with executive orders. Today's commission is drifting in a similar direction at the demand of a majority of its member states. It centralises power, pushing through complex 'omnibus' packages and bypassing the European parliament most recently in its proposal to rearm the EU.
What we are witnessing is not just a rupture in the transatlantic alliance but something more insidious.
There are signs of an ideological convergence between Trump's America and today's European political centre, where parties are increasingly stealing ideas from the far-right – as in Germany – or governing with those parties, directly or indirectly. That is not only the reality in many EU countries but in the EU system itself under von der Leyen.
Despite pledges in her first term to stick to the centre of politics, the commission increasingly relies on the votes of a rightwing majority in the European parliament, formed by conservative and far-right groupings of all stripes. These include the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), which used to be considered mainstream conservative but which now brings together Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni's Brothers of Italy party with more extreme far-right parties such as France's Reconquête and the Sweden Democrats. There is also the Patriots for Europe (PfE) group, co-led by Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orbán, and the even more extreme Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), dominated by Germany's Alternative für Deutschland.
The EPP has traditionally allied with socialist and liberal MEPs who as a bloc helped elect von der Leyen last year. But the EPP has recently voted with parties to the right of it, notably to delay a new deforestation law. The same happened on budgetary matters, the recognition of Edmundo González as Venezuela's president, and more recently in blocking an EU ethics body.
There is also a growing presidentialisation of the commission. During the Covid pandemic, von der Leyen personally negotiated vaccine deals by text message – shielding those discussions from public and parliamentary scrutiny.
The risk is that tolerance of such a shift towards personalised, opaque governance makes it easier to pass to the 'Trumpification' stage – where politicians increasingly borrow from the authoritarian playbook, preferring executive fiat over parliamentary democracy.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
This creeping phenomenon weakens Europe's ability to respond to the very threats that should be pushing it closer together. Just when European citizens are most willing to support joint action – on Ukraine, Gaza, big tech, or defence – their leaders are failing to respond. What's missing is the political courage to articulate a compelling alternative to far-right messaging – one that makes an affirmative case for EU-wide action on the issues that matter most to Europeans: common security, managed migration and shared prosperity. This means presenting European integration not as a threat to national identity, but as the means to protect and strengthen it.
When European nations pool their defence capabilities, they don't surrender sovereignty – they multiply their capacity to defend their communities. When they coordinate migration policies, they don't open floodgates – they create orderly, humane systems that serve both newcomers and existing communities. When they harmonise economic policies, they don't level down – they lift up regions and workers who have been left behind. This vision appeals to the same desire for security and belonging that populists exploit, but offers real solutions instead of scapegoats.
This failure to articulate such a vision has real costs. Every month of delay in building European defence capabilities is another month of dependence on an unreliable US. Every compromise with authoritarians – whether in Budapest or Jerusalem – erodes the democratic credibility that makes European leadership possible.
Trump and Putin have inadvertently given Europe a shared sense of purpose and a need for urgent action. The question is not whether Europeans are ready to respond – the polls show they are. The question is whether Europe's leaders will sleepwalk into irrelevance, or worse.
Alberto Alemanno is the Jean Monnet professor of EU law at HEC Paris and the founder of The Good Lobby
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
DC takeover live: National Guard hit streets of Washington as mayor attacks Trump's ‘authoritarian push'
The National Guard were deployed on the streets of Washington, D.C., on Tuesday night as part of President Donald Trump 's promise to make the capital the safest city in the world. The operation came after 850 federal agents and federalized Metropolitan Police went out on patrol the night before. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing that those officers 'made a total of 23 arrests,' adding: 'These arrests consisted of homicide, firearms offenses, possession with intent to distribute narcotics, fair evasion, lewd acts, stalking, possession of a high capacity magazine... driving under the influence, reckless driving, and a bench warrant.' Democrats have lambasted Trump for seizing control of the city's police force, rejecting his insistence that street crime is 'out of control' given that data for the last two years shows a steep decline. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser decried Trump's measures as an 'authoritarian push' on Tuesday and urged the local community to 'jump in' to 'protect our home rule.' The president introduced his plan on Monday by declaring the capital was in need of 'liberation' from 'violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people.'


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
National Guard troops carry out first patrol of DC
The District of Columbia National Guard commenced operations in Washington, DC, on Tuesday as part of President Donald Trump 's anti-crime initiative. Around 800 Guard personnel have been called to the capital, despite municipal data indicating a decrease in crime figures compared to the previous year. Activated under Title 32, the troops are not expected to be involved in arrests, and their deployment is scheduled to conclude on 25 September. This Guard deployment complements the "DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force," which includes federal agents and DC police officers now under federal control, leading to 23 arrests on Monday night. President Trump has indicated a desire to deploy similar National Guard operations to other Democrat-led cities, though he faces significant legal hurdles outside of Washington, DC.


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump has suggested Ukraine swap land with Russia – but that's illegal
Any peace deal that would see Ukraine cede territory to Russia in hopes of ending the war would be deeply unpopular with the Ukrainian people. It would also be illegal under the country's constitution. US President Donald Trump, who is due to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska's Anchorage on Friday, has suggested that a concession involving a swap of Ukrainian territories would be 'to the betterment of both' sides. However, . Kyiv "will not give Russia any awards for what it has done", Mr Zelensky said. "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier." For the Ukrainian leader, such a deal would be a political disaster, risking significant public outcry after more than three years of intense bloodshed and sacrifice. Crucially, he lacks the authority to sign off on it, as changing Ukraine's 1991 borders runs counter to the country's constitution. For now, freezing the front line appears to be an outcome the Ukrainian people are willing to accept. The current situation in Ukraine Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine, from the country's northeast to the Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed illegally in 2014. The front line is vast and cuts across six regions — the active front stretches for at least 1,000 kilometres (680 miles) — but if measured from along the border with Russia, it reaches as far as 2,300 kilometres (1,430 miles). Russia controls almost all of the Luhansk region and almost two-thirds of Donetsk region, which together comprise the Donbas, as the strategic industrial heartland of Ukraine is called. Russia has long coveted the area and illegally annexed it in the first year of the full-scale invasion, even though it did not control much of it at the time. Russia also partially controls more than half of the Kherson region, which is critical to maintain logistical flows of supplies coming in from the land corridor in neighboring Crimea, and also parts of the Zaporizhzhia region, where the Kremlin seized Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Russian forces also hold pockets of territory in Kharkiv and Sumy regions in northeastern Ukraine, far less strategically valuable for Moscow. Russian troops are gaining a foothold in the Dnipropetrovsk region. These could be what Moscow is willing to exchange for land it deems more important in Donetsk, where the Russian army has concentrated most of its effort. 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both,' Mr Trump said on Monday. Ukrainian forces are still active in the Kursk region inside Russia, but they barely hold any territory there, making it not as potent a bargaining chip as Kyiv's leaders had probably hoped when they launched the daring incursion across the border last year. Swapping Ukrainian controlled territory in Russia, however minuscule, will likely be the only palatable option for Kyiv in any land swapping scenario. Conceding land risks another invasion Surrendering territory would see those unwilling to live under Russian rule to pack up and leave. Many civilians have endured so much suffering and bloodshed since pro-Moscow forces began battling the Ukrainian military in the east in 2014 and since the full-scale invasion in 2022. From a military standpoint, abandoning the Donetsk region in particular would vastly improve Russia's ability to invade Ukraine again, according to the Washington-based think tank Institute for the Study of War. Bowing to such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its 'fortress belt' the main defensive line in Donetsk since 2014, "with no guarantee that fighting will not resume', the institute said in a recent report. The regional defensive line has prevented Russia's efforts to seize the region and continues to impede Russia's efforts to take the rest of the area, ISW said. Ukraine's constitution poses a major challenge to any deal involving a land swap because it requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders, said Ihor Reiterovych, a politics professor in the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 'Changes in territorial integrity can be done only by the decision of the people — not the president, the cabinet of ministers or the parliament can change it,' he said. 'In the constitution it is written that only by referendum can changes to Ukraine's territory be conducted.' If during negotiations Mr Zelensky agrees to swap territory with Russia, "in the same minute he will be a criminal because he would be abandoning the main law that governs Ukraine', Mr Reiterovych said. Mr Trump said he was 'a little bothered' by Mr Zelensky's assertion over the weekend that he needed constitutional approval to cede to Russia the territory that it captured in its unprovoked invasion. 'I mean, he's got approval to go into a war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Mr Trump added. 'Because there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody.' Mr Zelensky is still trying to regain the people's trust that was damaged when he reversed course on a law that would have diminished the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption watchdogs. The move was a red line for those citizens who are protective of the country's institutions and are suspicious of certain members of Mr Zelensky's inner circle. Freezing the conflict seems a lesser evil for Ukraine Analysts like Mr Reiterovych dismiss a land swap as a distraction. Freezing the conflict along the current front line is the only option Ukrainians are willing to accept, he said, citing recent polls. This option would also buy time for both sides to consolidate manpower and build up their domestic weapons industries. Ukraine would require strong security guarantees from its Western partners to deter future Russian aggression, which Kyiv believes is inevitable. Still, freezing the conflict will also be difficult for Ukrainians to accept. Along with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the partial occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk after that, it would require accepting that the Ukrainian military is not able to retake lost territories militarily. Kyiv accepted its inability to retake these territories but never formally recognised them as Russian. A similar scenario could unfold in the new regions taken by Russian forces. It also is not a viable long-term solution. 'It is the lesser evil option for everyone and it will not provoke protests or rallies on the streets,' Mr Reiterovych said.