Summary & Additional Remarks by Geopolist | Istanbul Center for Geopolitics:
For decades, Pax Americana provided a security umbrella that allowed democratic allies in Europe and East Asia to prosper without shouldering the full burden of their defense. The U.S. served as the central pillar of NATO in Europe and a critical security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific, keeping potential adversaries like Russia and China in check. But now, with Donald Trump’s return to power and his administration’s apparent disinterest in maintaining long-standing alliances, this era is coming to an end.
The key question is: Can democracies in Europe and East Asia organize new security frameworks to replace America’s leadership? And if so, can Germany and Japan—two economic powerhouses but historically reluctant military leaders—step into roles they have long avoided?
The stakes could not be higher. As a coalition of autocracies led by China and Russia expands its influence, the timing of America’s strategic retreat could not be worse. European and East Asian democracies now face a defining moment: Do they unite and take responsibility for their security, or do they fragment, seeking protection from other great powers?
Europe’s Uncertain Path to Strategic Autonomy
In Europe, U.S. security guarantees have long provided the foundation for NATO’s deterrence strategy. But Trump’s open hostility to NATO, his wavering support for Ukraine, and his suggestion that European nations should handle their own defense have left European leaders scrambling for alternatives.
Recent developments highlight this growing anxiety:
- Kaja Kallas, the EU’s new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, declared that “the free world needs a new leader” and called on Europe to take the initiative.
- British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the moment “once in a generation” and pledged deeper security cooperation with France, NATO’s other nuclear-armed power.
- Germany’s presumptive chancellor, Friedrich Merz, stated that Europe must “achieve independence from the U.S.,” signaling a shift away from traditional Atlanticism.
However, Europe faces major obstacles in forging a new security order:
- The European Union is not a military power. Unlike the U.S., which integrates economic and military dominance, the EU remains a primarily economic bloc. Efforts to create a cohesive European defense force have repeatedly stalled due to differences in national priorities and military capabilities.
- Germany’s reluctance to lead militarily. While Germany is Europe’s largest economy, it has long shied away from military leadership due to its historical legacy. Former Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski once remarked that he feared “German inaction more than German power,” but convincing Germany to take on a military leadership role remains an uphill battle.
- Far-right pro-Russian sentiments. The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which finished second in Germany’s recent federal elections, openly sympathizes with Russia and opposes military support for Ukraine. Similar trends are visible in France, where Marine Le Pen’s National Rally could shift France’s foreign policy closer to Moscow if she wins the presidency.
While the UK and France could attempt to lead a “coalition of the willing,” the absence of U.S. backing would make this effort far weaker than NATO. Moreover, such a transition would take years, if not decades, to develop—time that Europe may not have as Russia presses its territorial ambitions.
East Asia’s Dilemma: The Search for an ‘Asian NATO’
While European allies at least have NATO as a foundation, U.S. partners in Asia face an even more precarious situation. Unlike Britain and France, none of America’s East Asian allies have nuclear weapons. The region lacks a formal military alliance comparable to NATO, relying instead on bilateral security pacts with the U.S.
But now that the U.S. commitment to Asia is in doubt, regional leaders are contemplating the formation of an “Asian NATO” to deter China’s growing assertiveness. Such an alliance would likely include:
- Japan, the region’s economic powerhouse and closest U.S. ally.
- South Korea, which remains under constant threat from North Korea.
- Taiwan, a critical democracy facing the threat of Chinese invasion.
- Southeast Asian nations, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, which are seeking security guarantees against Chinese expansionism.
However, forming a cohesive military bloc faces enormous challenges:
- Japan’s historical baggage. While Japan is the only country powerful enough to lead such a coalition, historical grievances from its wartime occupation of neighboring countries still loom large. Many South Koreans, Filipinos, and Chinese citizens remain deeply skeptical of Japanese military leadership.
- Reluctance to militarize. Like Germany, Japan has spent the postwar period as a pacifist state. Though it has gradually increased military spending, the Japanese public remains cautious about a return to military assertiveness.
- China’s growing economic influence. Several Southeast Asian countries, despite their security concerns, remain deeply dependent on China for trade. A formal military alliance against Beijing could have severe economic repercussions.
Adding to the region’s uncertainty is the fate of Taiwan. Trump’s willingness to abandon Ukraine raises fears that he may be willing to strike a deal with China that sacrifices Taiwan’s sovereignty in exchange for economic or political concessions. Without a clear U.S. commitment to defend Taiwan, regional allies will need to reassess their entire security strategy.
The Worst-Case Scenario: Fragmentation and Appeasement
If Germany and Japan fail to step up, the consequences could be dire. Instead of forming new alliances to counter the rising authoritarian bloc, former U.S. allies may seek protection from other great powers:
- South Korea and Southeast Asian nations might seek accommodation with China. With no viable alternative security guarantees, some may feel compelled to accept Beijing’s dominance rather than risk military confrontation.
- The UK might lean deeper into its “special relationship” with the U.S. Even if Trump reduces America’s role in NATO, Britain may prioritize bilateral agreements with Washington over a European security alliance.
- Germany and France might explore détente with Russia. If Trump cuts off military aid to Ukraine and forces Kyiv into a peace deal favorable to Moscow, some European leaders might view cooperation with Russia as the lesser evil.
- Japan might pursue nuclear weapons. With its security guarantees uncertain, Japan may overcome its postwar aversion to nuclear armament, fundamentally altering the balance of power in Asia.
Such a fragmented world would leave democracies vulnerable to further aggression from authoritarian regimes, accelerating the decline of Western influence.
The Final Question: Can Democracy Survive Without U.S. Leadership?
The unraveling of Pax Americana was inevitable at some point. No single superpower can maintain global order indefinitely. However, the timing and manner of America’s retreat could not be worse. Just as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are flexing their geopolitical muscles, the U.S. is stepping away, leaving its allies scrambling for alternatives.
The burden of defending democracy now falls on the very countries—Germany and Japan—that were once responsible for its greatest destruction. Both nations have the economic strength and technological capabilities to lead, but the question remains: Are they ready to embrace military leadership in a world that desperately needs it?
For the moment, the answer remains uncertain. If they fail, the world may witness the rise of a new authoritarian order, with Russia and China setting the global agenda. But if Germany and Japan rise to the occasion, they could usher in a new era of democratic cooperation—one that proves democracy can survive, even without American leadership.
Read more here.
