"I think it's important that I be here," Donald Trump declared yesterday, with that barely concealed hint of irritation that now characterizes his relations with Europeans. Read more: trump turns justice The American president was expressing his frustration with Britain's response, deemed insufficient, regarding protection of the Strait of Hormuz, while Sir Keir Starmer merely announced that "the UK was working with its allies on a plan" to secure this strategic passage.
Another plan. Always plans. Never action.
This sequence, reported by the BBC and the New York Times, perfectly illustrates the transatlantic malaise that has been eating away at the West for decades: on one side, an America that assumes the costs and risks of global security; on the other, a Europe that drapes itself in multilateral rhetoric to mask its strategic impotence.
Read more: breaking analysis trumps## Europe, the Eternal Geopolitical Adolescent
The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of global oil exports transit, crystallizes this asymmetry. When tensions escalate in this vital region, who steps up? Washington. Who sends warships? The US Navy. Who assumes the diplomatic and military costs? America, again and always.
Meanwhile, London "works with its allies on a plan." This hollow formula, recycled endlessly in European chancelleries, reflects an embarrassing reality: Europe has given up being an autonomous geopolitical actor. It prefers moral posturing to operational effectiveness, press releases to aircraft carriers.
This strategic infantilization suits everyone, or almost. European leaders can play the role of moral lecturers without assuming the responsibilities that come with it. European public opinions lull themselves with pacifist illusions while benefiting from American protection. Only American taxpayers foot the bill.
Trump, Brutal Revealer of an Unspoken Dependence
Trumpian frustration isn't new, but it has the merit of frankness. Unlike his predecessors who wrapped their reproaches in drawing-room diplomacy, Trump says out loud what Washington has been thinking quietly for decades: Europe is a stowaway on Western security.
This criticism transcends American partisan divides. Democrats and Republicans share the same exasperation with allies who demand protection while criticizing their methods. The Biden administration had already expressed similar reservations, albeit in more diplomatic language.
The Strait of Hormuz case is emblematic. This maritime route, vital to the global economy, should logically mobilize all countries that depend on it. Yet only the United States maintains a permanent naval presence in the region, occasionally supported by a few allies. Europe, the world's largest energy importer, is conspicuous by its operational discretion.
The Illusion of European Multilateralism
Starmer's response perfectly illustrates this European schizophrenia. Speaking of a "plan with allies" amounts to implicitly acknowledging that the UK can do nothing alone. This involuntary honesty underlines the extent of British strategic regression since the end of Empire.
European multilateralism functions as a convenient screen to mask national impotence. Rather than acknowledge their weaknesses and invest massively in their military capabilities, Europeans prefer to dilute their responsibilities in ineffective collective structures.
This approach offers a double advantage: it allows them to economize on substantial budgetary efforts while maintaining a facade of international respectability. But it has a major geopolitical cost: the progressive loss of strategic autonomy.
Toward European Emancipation?
American irritation could paradoxically serve as a catalyst for European awakening. Current tensions around the Strait of Hormuz offer Europeans a unique opportunity to prove they can assume their responsibilities without American tutelage.
This would require a mental revolution: accepting that security has a price, that geopolitics isn't reducible to good intentions, that influence is conquered through force as much as through law. A revolution that European elites, formatted by decades of institutional pacifism, seem incapable of operating.
The alternative is clear: either Europe finally assumes its rank as a world power, or it definitively accepts its status as an American protectorate. Half-measures and "plans with allies" will no longer suffice to mask this reality. Trump, in his brutal way, has just reminded Starmer and all European leaders of this.
The question is no longer whether this dependence is desirable, but how much longer America will agree to finance it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why is America frustrated with Europe regarding global security?
America is frustrated because it perceives Europe as relying on the U.S. for military and diplomatic support without contributing equally. This dynamic is highlighted by the U.S. taking on the costs and risks of global security, while Europe often resorts to vague plans rather than decisive action.
Q: What is the significance of the Strait of Hormuz in this context?
The Strait of Hormuz is crucial as it is a major transit route for nearly 20% of global oil exports. The article emphasizes that when tensions arise in this region, it is primarily the U.S. that responds with military presence and diplomatic efforts, showcasing the imbalance in responsibilities between America and Europe.
Q: How does the article describe Europe's role in global geopolitics?
The article describes Europe as having become a "geopolitical adolescent," preferring moral posturing over taking decisive action. It suggests that European leaders are more focused on rhetoric and plans rather than operational effectiveness, relying on American protection while avoiding the responsibilities that come with it.