The Europeans got the message.

American presidents since Kennedy have wanted Europe to shoulder more of the burden of its own security. But not until President Donald Trump has a U.S. leader succeeded in getting Europeans to want the same. Of course, the eruptions of a revanchist Russia have helped.

The latest example of Europe’s new groove: The prime minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, announced on Friday plans for all Polish men to undergo military training. Tusk said he wants to increase the size of the army from 200,000 soldiers to half a million, and that Ukraine’s army has 800,000 while Russia’s has 1.3 million. It’s no coincidence that the target set by Tusk would make up the difference.

One far-sighted philosopher prophesied long ago that Russia’s rise would lead to Europe’s revitalization. In 1886, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that Europe might only shake its feebleness, divisions, and liberal illusions in the face of a growing Russian threat: 

I mean such an increase in the threatening attitude of Russia, that Europe would have to make up its mind to become equally threatening—namely, to acquire one will, by means of a new caste to rule over the Continent, a persistent, dreadful will of its own, that can set its aims thousands of years ahead; so that the long spun-out comedy of its petty-stateism, and its dynastic as well as its democratic many-willed-ness, might finally be brought to a close. The time for petty politics is past; the next century will bring the struggle for the dominion of the world—the compulsion to great politics.

The 20th century did indeed bring great power politics to Europe, as Nietzsche foretold—but not European unity against Russia. That wouldn’t come until the third decade of the 21st century. Still, the Trump White House has needed to prod the Europeans to translate their moral solidarity into military action.

Last month Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, during a meeting in Brussels, told NATO allies that the U.S. would retrench from Europe—meaning Europeans would need to step up on their continent. “Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO,” Hegseth said.

Subsequent White House moves reinforced the message. At the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President J.D. Vance scolded European elites for sacrificing their own people on the altar of globalism, and he questioned whether shared values still held together the transatlantic partnership. A few days later, Trump dispatched top diplomats to meet Russian envoys in Saudi Arabia—and didn’t invite Europeans to join. Two weeks after that, during a tense Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump made clear that he wouldn’t aid Ukraine’s war effort against Russia indefinitely.

Europeans, in reaction, have grown concerned that they can no longer rely on America to defend them from Russian aggression—or worse, that Washington is aligning with Moscow against Europe. To meet the moment, leaders like Tusk and Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, have promoted European self-sufficiency. “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” Merz said last month.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron—Mr. Europe himself—must sense a golden opportunity to construct what he calls a “Power Europe.” In recent weeks, Macron has found a more receptive audience for his controversial idea to extend France’s nuclear umbrella across the continent. Tusk has said Poland’s government is “carefully examining” France’s offer—and might itself develop nuclear weapons one day. Merz said Sunday that he’s open to France and Britain “sharing” their nuclear weapons with Germany.

The Europeans would be wise to fold up America’s nuclear umbrella and open one of their own—and America would be wise to let them. U.S. nuclear deterrence has always been questionable in Eastern Europe, where America lacks vital interests. In such a situation, America’s clients can become over-confident, while its adversaries may doubt that Washington would fight for faraway vassals. 

Hegseth had proposed in Brussels that Europe take the lead only in conventional security while Washington continues providing nuclear deterrence. But if the Europeans believe that Washington has become “largely indifferent to the fate of Europe,” as Merz recently claimed, why would they count on America to risk nuclear war to defend Warsaw and Vilnius? The truth is, they no longer do.

Oddly, many American commentators who have mocked Europe’s weakness are now dismissing its plans for rearmament as moronic and the leaders who promote those plans as warmongers. Some of these commentators are plainly motivated by anti-European sentiments, plus a smattering of braggadocio about American power.

Ben Shapiro, a pro-Israel podcaster, is one of many conservative voices calling on Europe to pay more for defense, or as he put it, to “pony up, show us the money.” Shapiro is also one of many conservatives who have evinced personal disdain for Europe, as he did in a tirade a few years ago on his show. On the same day, Shapiro left no doubt about the kind of notions that fed his antipathy, promoting David Harsanyi’s book Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent.

America-First patriots have taken a different view of the old continent, seeing it as the ancestral homeland of most U.S. citizens and the wellspring of America’s cultural heritage. 

Following the Cold War, Pat Buchanan, a cofounder of The American Conservative, was fiercely critical of America’s deepening entanglement in Eastern Europe, predicting that it would provoke a backlash from Russia. He also lambasted the EU as a “socialist superstate” and spoke of Europe’s civilizational decline. Yet Buchanan always harbored deep affection for Europe, and he drew harsh criticism for his view that America was founded on European stock and might not survive the influx of African, Asian, and Hispanic immigrants.

Buchanan would agree, I think, that the best reason to support Europeans’ rearmament is not that they have been insolent freeloaders, but that it would be good for both Europe and America. 

In truth, American militarism has lately endangered Europe, not protected it, often over the objections of European capitals. Belligerent U.S. policies made a Russian invasion of Ukraine more likely. U.S. wars in the Middle East sparked migration crises that have destabilized European politics. And U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza has inflamed the hatred that many of Europe’s newcomers feel for the West. American retrenchment and European rearmament would be a boon to Europe’s security. 

A military restructuring may also bring about a spiritual revival among Europeans, arousing the warrior ethos that historically they have been known for. Safeguarding one’s own existence tends to focus the mind, dispelling universalist illusions and sharpening distinctions between friend and foe, brother and stranger. For Europeans, whose national identities are being deconstructed to make way for multiculturalism, such a change in consciousness can’t come soon enough.

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

European self-sufficiency would also be good for the United States, as Buchanan argued in books like A Republic, Not an Empire. Our efforts to serve as the world’s policeman have drained U.S. resources and enmeshed us in foreign conflicts that do not implicate the interests of Americans. In the dawning era of multipolarity, America should prioritize the homeland; Europe should become a strong pillar in the NATO alliance; and the collective West needs to chart a new course—even as it continues marching toward a common destiny.

To that end, the Trump administration should modulate its criticisms of Europe, highlighting the mutual benefits of European independence and the common interests of Western nations. J.D. Vance struck the right note in Munich: “We ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard,” Vance insisted. “And I say ‘ourselves,’ because I fundamentally believe we are on the same team.” 

If Trump can pass the ball to Europe without breaking up the team, he could go down not only as a successful America-First president—but as a transformative figure in the history of Western civilization.