From tension to transformation: the new face of transatlantic relations

Dejan Azeski,
member of the International Institute IFIMES

(Pachodo.org) - From Washington to Berlin, from Brussels to Warsaw, the once stable architecture of Western partnership is buckling under the weight of a new, confrontational logic. At the heart of this transformation stands US President Donald Trump, whose second administration is not merely recycling old disputes with Europe, but radicalising them to the point of geopolitical rupture.

In recent weeks, announcements of fresh tariffs, scathing diplomatic attacks on European leaders and the decision to withdraw thousands of US troops from Germany have created an atmosphere that resembles rivalry rather than alliance. European capitals, while cautious in their rhetoric, no longer conceal their concern: is this a temporary phase, or the beginning of a lasting Western “withdrawal”?
 

Between alliance and withdrawal: the future of the US role in European defence

In Berlin, reactions to the decision to withdraw around 5,000 US troops appeared formally measured, but were in fact deeply alarming. German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz sought to ease tensions by insisting that the United States remains a key ally. Yet behind the diplomatic language, German security circles interpret the decision as a signal: Washington is reassessing its role as a guarantor of European security. The withdrawal does not come in a vacuum. It is part of a broader strategic review in which the Trump administration is redefining the US military posture in Europe, prioritising the Pacific and homeland security. For Europe, however, the symbolism matters as much as the number itself. The US presence in Germany, a historical legacy of the Cold War, was not merely military, but also a political guarantee of transatlantic cohesion. What makes the situation even more explosive is the manner in which the decision was taken. According to European sources, the allies were not informed in advance, further eroding trust. In diplomacy, the process is often as consequential as the policy, and in this case, both point to a widening gap.
 

Economic power as a hidden vector of destabilisation

Alongside the security dimension, economic confrontation is gaining new momentum. Trump’s threats to raise tariffs, particularly on the European automotive industry, strike at the very core of the German economy. Analyses suggest that a single tariff package alone could inflict losses amounting to tens of billions of euros on Germany. But tariffs are not just an economic lever; they are also a political instrument. In Trump’s logic, the trade deficit is not a technical problem, but evidence of unfair relations that must be “rectified” by force. Such a posture pushes Europe away from the traditional multilateralism to which it still clings, thrusting it into a world of bilateral pressure and conditionality. The European Union, for its part, is responding with a combination of restraint and strategic anxiety. On the one hand, there is a clear readiness to impose counter-tariffs. On the other hand, there is an awareness that escalation could trigger broader economic instability, something the continent, already affected by energy and industrial pressures, can ill afford.
 

What lies beneath the surface?

At the heart of this conflict is a fundamental disagreement over the very nature of the alliance. For Trump, NATO and transatlantic relations are transactional: Europe should pay more, shoulder more responsibility and stop “exploiting” the American economy. For European leaders, the alliance is a system of shared values and long-term interests, one that cannot be reduced to a balance sheet.

This divide becomes especially evident in the context of the Iran crisis. European countries, refusing to fully align with the American position, have come under direct pressure from Washington. Trump has gone so far as to call NATO a “paper tiger”, signalling deep dissatisfaction with their stance. The result is a paradox: the more the US insists on “greater European responsibility”, the more Europe begins to contemplate strategic autonomy, but without a clear plan for achieving it.

Seen from a historical perspective, the current crisis has deep roots. Trade disputes between the United States and Europe are nothing new, but they have never before been so closely linked with security concerns. In the past, frictions over steel or aviation were able to coexist with stable military cooperation; today, they are intertwined.

This interconnectedness creates a new type of risk: economic tensions can undermine confidence in the security relationship, and vice versa. When European leaders see American tariffs deployed as political pressure, they begin to wonder whether the same logic could be extended to the security sphere.

In Eastern Europe, reactions are even more intense. Countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, which have traditionally relied on US military protection, see any reduction in the American presence as a potential risk against the backdrop of Vladimir Putin and Russian policy. Although some US politicians have proposed moving troops eastwards, uncertainty remains. Meanwhile, France and parts of the EU are stepping up their rhetoric on “strategic autonomy”, an idea long regarded as marginal, but now moving centre stage. The reality, however, is that Europe still lacks an integrated military structure capable of replacing NATO.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the current situation is psychological. Trust, the most important currency in international relations, has been severely damaged. European leaders can no longer take for granted that American policy will be predictable or stable. At the same time, the Trump administration sees the European response as proof of weakness and dependence.

This creates a cycle of mutual distrust that is difficult to break. Every new tariff package, every new military decision and every public criticism adds another layer of friction.
 

A room for hope: all is not lost

Yet, despite all the heated rhetoric and tensions, one crucial constant remains: interdependence. The United States and Europe remain deeply intertwined in economic, military and political terms. Even the harshest critics on both sides acknowledge that complete decoupling is unrealistic.

The question is no longer whether the relationship will survive, but rather what form it will take. Will it persist as a traditional alliance, built on trust and shared values? Or will it turn into a pragmatic and at times confrontational partnership?

At present, the signals from Washington suggest the latter. Trump’s policy is not merely a collection of disparate decisions but a coherent vision: the US as an independent centre of power, redefining its relations in line with its immediate national interests.

For Europe, this points to something that should have been accomplished long ago: the need for strategic maturity. Can the continent operate without automatic American support? Can it build a security architecture of its own? And perhaps most importantly, can it remain united throughout that process?

Ultimately, the crisis in transatlantic relations goes beyond tariffs and troop deployments. It concerns the very future of the Western world as a political project. If the idea of the “West” as a community of shared values and interests ever existed, it is now being seriously tested.

And as Washington and Brussels carefully weigh their next steps, one thing is clear: this is not a passing storm. It is a new climate.

The article reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the position of IFIMES.

Ljubljana/Washington/Skopje, 22 May 2026

Footnote:
[1] IFIMES - International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018. The Institute also publishes the international academic journal "European Perspectives."More information is available at: https://www.europeanperspectives.org/en