When Viktor Orbán declared in 2014 that Hungary would become an “illiberal democracy,” few anticipated how prophetic his words would become for global democracy. A decade later, Freedom House reports that global democracy has declined for the 18th consecutive year, with the United States experiencing its steepest democratic regression in recent history. As the US joins the kleptocratic club of nations on its journey towards autocratic/oligarchic consolidation, the EU remains one of the last bastions of liberal democratic governance — and it faces unprecedented challenges from both traditional adversaries and potentially from former allies.
The New Global Order: Spheres of Influence Resurgent
The post-Cold War dream of a unified, rules-based international order is rapidly giving way to a more fragmented and dangerous reality. We’re witnessing the reemergence of a “spheres of influence” doctrine where major powers assert dominance over their regional neighbors through a combination of economic coercion, military pressure, and political manipulation.
Russia, under Putin’s leadership, views Europe not merely as a neighbor but as its historical playground. This perspective was starkly illustrated by the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the earlier annexation of Crimea. The Kremlin’s actions demonstrate a clear pattern of using energy dependence, cyber warfare, information warfare, and military force to reassert control over what it considers its territory. With Belarus and Georgia within the fold, Putin is focused on a Ukrainian capitulation, and has his eyes set on the Baltic states next which could, if not handled properly, trigger NATO dissolution.
For China, Beijing sees Asia and the Pacific is its dominion. However, China’s approach in this region differs markedly, emphasizing economic dominance through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and regional trade agreements like RCEP. Beijing’s strategy combines soft power projection with occasional displays of military capability, as seen in the South China Sea and around Taiwan. However, China is watching very carefully how things are unfolding between Russia and Ukraine to determine whether they can also invade Taiwan with impunity.
Africa has become a laboratory for competing influence strategies. Russia’s Wagner Group operates in the region supporting autocratic regimes and extracting natural resources, while China builds infrastructure and develops long-term economic partnerships. This contrast illuminates the different tools major powers employ to establish regional hegemony.
Meanwhile, Trump is actively talking about pulling Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Panama into a Monroe Doctrine-esque “sphere of influence”, implying US dominance over North and Central America. All of this echoes Putin’s call for a multipolar world to replace the rules-based international order that seems to be crumbling around us. It would not be surprising to see a formal meeting among Trump, Putin, and Xi at some point in the future to decide the fate of the rest of the world as they carve it up amongst themselves.
The New Administration’s Stance on Ukraine
Speculating on Trump’s geopolitical intentions aren’t fruitful at the moment this early into his tenure. On the subject of Ukraine, Trump could move forward with strategies to try and break Europe’s support or it is possible he could favor supporting Ukraine in a more robust way to leverage the Kremlin into a peace deal. However, given the cast of characters Trump is surrounding himself with in his cabinet, its entirely likely that pressuring Moscow will not be the case. Vice President Vance is a vocal opponent of US military and financial support for Ukraine and favors ending the conflict on Russian terms. The billionaire network that has provided resources and influence for the Trump/Vance campaign, prominent among them, Elon Musk, is also interested in a Putin victory. The proposed nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth has shown a lack of commitment towards Ukraine and the proposed Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is a vocal proponent of autocrats like Putin and the recently deposed Bashar al-Assad. Lastly, the nominee for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio thinks that Ukraine should move toward negotiations and that giving up its territorial sovereignty may need to be a sacrifice needed to achieve peace — however long it may last before Putin begins again. The composition of the incoming administration suggests a fundamental realignment of U.S. foreign policy priorities and doesn’t bode well for Ukraine or Europe.
Europe’s Vulnerabilities
In that vein, if Trump is going to side with Putin over Ukraine and its looking increasingly like he might, the only problem that they would need to resolve is Europe’s support for Ukraine which if broken, would hasten Ukraine’s capitulation. Trump could threaten Europe in order to cut that lifeline so that Zelensky would be forced to come to the negotiating table. Putin’s preference would be actual implementation of Trump threats against Europe to weaken Europe for future escalations and accelerate Ukraine’s complete surrender to Russian maximalist demands. Since the start of the war, Europe has excelled at weening itself off of Russian oil and gas but it has been supplemented in large part by US energy supplies. With Trump now in play, there are potentially four critical threats to Europe coming from the US that could influence its support for Ukraine.
· Removing the US from NATO and by extension, removing Europe from the US nuclear umbrella.
· Starting a tariff war with Europe.
· Constraining US oil and gas supplies to Europe.
· Economic and financial sanctions against Europe.
Strategic Counter-measures
To respond to these potential threats, the EU/NATO needs to develop a counter strategy.
· Arming themselves with large increases in their respective defense budgets (up to 3–4% of GDP) and begin nuclear proliferation programs with each of the allied states to properly protect themselves against Russian nuclear threats. They would also need to begin to ramp up investment in Ukraine’s defense industries.
· Engage in tit for tat tariffs against the US and expand trading relationships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. As a counter weight to Trump threats, Europe should begin opening trade negotiations with China as a potential trading partner.
· Move toward Norway, Canada, Azerbaijan, and the Saudis as more reliable energy partners while spending a tremendous amount of investment in R&D resources on completing and scaling up fusion technology to break their reliance on fossil fuels.
· Bolstering their financial and payments systems in advance and turning right around and sanctioning the US in response.
Europe’s Moment of Decision
Europe stands at a historical inflection point comparable to the aftermath of World War II. The choice between accommodation with authoritarian powers and the defense of democratic values will shape global politics for generations. Success requires not just responding to immediate threats but building genuine strategic autonomy across military, economic, and technological domains.
The cost of action could be high, but the cost of inaction will invariably be catastrophic. Europe must move decisively to secure its independence and preserve democratic governance as a viable model for the 21st century. The window for action is narrow, but Europe possesses the economic strength, technological capability, and democratic legitimacy to succeed — if it acts now.
The question is no longer whether Europe will face these challenges, but whether it will face them divided or united, reactively or proactively, weakened or strengthened. The answer will determine not just Europe’s future, but the future of democratic governance globally.
In another article, I will explore broader strategies that Europe should employ that will help it to better weather the coming storm.
