‍

By Chionye Hencs Odiaka, Nigeria

‍

‍

The recent tensions triggered by renewed statements from the United States regarding Greenland have once again exposed a long-standing but often avoided question in global politics: Is Europe truly independent as a collection of sovereign nations, or has it merely replaced one form of dependence with another?

‍

Greenland, a semi autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark, became the focus of controversy after remarks attributed to US-President Donald Trump, suggesting a possible forceful acquisition. European capitals reacted swiftly with objections and warnings, including the reconsideration of United States military bases in Europe. Washington, in turn, reportedly raised the prospect of withdrawing from NATO should its interests not be accommodated.

‍

What followed was perhaps more revealing than the threats themselves. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte openly stated that Europe is incapable of defending itself without the United States, and that the idea of Europe standing alone militarily was unrealistic. His remarks stripped away diplomatic restraint and brought to the surface an uncomfortable truth many Europeans have quietly acknowledged, but rarely confronted openly.

‍

This reality sits uneasily with history. Europe once dominated the world politically, economically, and militarily. European powers carved up continents, imposed borders, extracted resources, and dictated global trade routes. Britain colonized what later became the United States, establishing the thirteen colonies that would eventually rebel and form a new nation. France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and others left deep footprints across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Europe was also the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, and scientific breakthroughs that shaped modern civilization.

‍

Against this historical backdrop, and considering Europe’s advancement in modern times, one would have expected the continent to be fully equipped and capable of defending itself militarily without external assistance. The assertion that Europe cannot defend itself without American protection therefore raises fundamental questions about the meaning of independence in the twenty first century. Independence is not merely about flags, anthems, or elections. It implies the capacity to make sovereign decisions and to protect them without external coercion. If a continent with some of the world’s largest economies and advanced technologies still relies on an external power for its basic security, then its independence is conditional and largely symbolic.

‍

Europe’s reliance on the United States did not arise by accident. After the devastation of the Second World War, the continent was economically shattered and militarily exhausted. The United States stepped in through the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO, providing reconstruction funds and a security umbrella against the Soviet threat. Over time, this arrangement solidified into a system where European nations prioritized economic recovery and integration while outsourcing much of their defence responsibility to Washington. During the Cold War, this dependency appeared logical and necessary.

‍

However, the global context has changed. The Soviet Union collapsed decades ago, yet Europe’s security architecture remains largely frozen in a Cold War framework. Russia is often cited as justification for continued reliance on American military power, but this explanation does not fully withstand scrutiny. Europe collectively spends hundreds of billions of dollars on defence each year. Countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom possess advanced military industries, intelligence capabilities, and in some cases nuclear weapons. The European Union, as a bloc, has an economy comparable to that of the United States and significantly larger than Russia’s.

‍

The problem, therefore, is not a lack of resources but a lack of political will and strategic cohesion. European defence remains fragmented along national lines, resulting in duplication, incompatible systems, and divergent threat perceptions. While European leaders frequently speak of strategic autonomy, these declarations often remain rhetorical rather than operational. Europe continues to lean on the United States not because it must, but because it has chosen the comfort of dependency over the responsibility of self reliance.

‍

This strategic limitation has concrete consequences for how Europe is perceived beyond its borders, particularly in Africa. For decades, Europe has presented itself as a defender of sovereignty, multilateralism, and a rules-based international order. Yet Africa’s political and policy circles increasingly view these claims through the lens of Europe’s own dependence on external security guarantees. When Europe speaks of strategic autonomy, the message often sounds aspirational rather than authoritative.

‍

In practical terms, Europe’s lack of political cohesion and defence autonomy weakens its engagement with Africa on security and governance. European responses to crises in the Sahel, Libya, the Horn of Africa, and the Red Sea region are frequently seen as fragmented or overly aligned with transatlantic priorities. This perception reduces Europe’s credibility as an independent strategic actor capable of shaping outcomes rather than reacting to them. The resulting vacuum has encouraged African states to diversify their partnerships. Engagements with China, Russia, Turkey, and Gulf states are driven not only by opportunism but by a search for partners perceived as more decisive and strategically coherent. Europe’s influence, once assumed, is now increasingly contested.

‍

The Greenland episode illustrates the risks inherent in this choice. When a security guarantor questions alliances or attaches conditions to protection, the dependent party has limited leverage. Threats to withdraw from NATO or impose unilateral decisions expose the imbalance within the transatlantic relationship. Europe may object diplomatically, but its ability to enforce those objections remains constrained.

‍

The question, therefore, is not whether Europe can defend itself, but whether it is willing to do so. History suggests Europe has the intellectual, industrial, and financial capacity to reclaim strategic independence. What remains uncertain is whether it has the courage to confront the comfort of dependency and redefine its place in a rapidly changing global order. Until then, Europe’s independence will remain incomplete, and its credibility abroad, particularly in Africa, will continue to face growing scrutiny.

‍

‍