Europe at a strategic crossroads: Russia escalates, US wavers, Taiwan seizes opportunity

The geopolitical landscape of Europe in mid-2025 remains in turmoil, with the Ukraine conflict entering an even deadlier phase. The war intensified dramatically in late June when Russian forces launched a wave of missile and drone strikes targeting residential areas across Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and other major regions, killing over 100 civilians and wounding hundreds more.

These attacks coincide with Ukraine’s cross-border drone and sabotage operations inside Russia, underscoring the war's transnational escalation. With no signs of ceasefire in sight, the conflict continues to reshape the continent’s strategic calculations.

Hopes for a negotiated resolution have faded, replaced by a grim consensus: the Russo-Ukraine war may define the security architecture of Europe for years to come.

This volatile environment has profound implications for countries along Russia's border, notably Poland and the Baltic states. In 2025, the governments in Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn have warned that Russia may not stop at Ukraine.

This threat perception has translated into urgent calls for military readiness including increasing defense procurement, expanding volunteer civil defense training, and stepping up military exercises. In contrast with more conservative language earlier, European leaders from Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausid to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk are speaking openly about the credible risk of direct Russian aggression.

Simultaneously, Europe has been made to reassess the United States’ strategic reliability. Under President Donald Trump, bilateral relations are being renegotiated in terms of reciprocity and financial burden-sharing.

Washington’s invocation of a NATO GDP-spend threshold of 5%—despite much of Europe achieving no more than 2.5%—epitomizes Trump’s transactional mindset. More critically, the Trump White House has not provided guarantees of military engagement in the event that Russia crosses a NATO border.

This departure from decades of U.S. reassurance has injected fresh unease into European capitals, prompting urgent reassessments of defense and alliance dependencies.

Meanwhile, NATO fatigue is becoming increasingly visible. European think tanks and academic circles are scrambling to categorize Trump’s non-traditional policymaking style—is it purely transactional? Random? Strategically opaque? The conclusion: there is no coherent American strategy, making it impossible to rely on established geopolitical paradigms.

Scholars from the Institut français des relations internationals (Ifri), the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS), the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and Chatham House are left sifting through behavioral profiling and scenario modeling without a cohesive consensus. In this fog of uncertainty, Europe lacks a unified strategic posture, leaving each nation improvising best-guess defenses.

The Security Dilemma Intensifies on Europe's Eastern Flank

European strategic discourse has undergone a decisive shift. No longer relegated to hypothetical concerns, defenders of NATO’s eastern flank are being forced to prepare for a real attack.

Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, supported by Poland, have significantly expanded their armed forces’ active duty numbers and reinforced civil defense networks with reserve troops. Coupled with increased military spending (Poland’s defense budget, for example, increased by 20% in 2025) it is clear that deterrence requires visible preparation, and not mere rhetoric.

Yet the credibility challenge remains. Russian military incursions—often through hybrid means like information warfare and airspace violations—highlight Europe's constraints.

Critics argue that Europe lacks the rapid response architecture needed for a sudden escalation and the strategic capacity to face a prolonged conflict. Even Germany’s Bundeswehr modernization attempts are hamstrung by internal bureaucratic and political delays. This absence of harmonized capacity undermines deterrence and exposes vulnerabilities on the alliance’s eastern frontier.

A Fraying Transatlantic Security Architecture

The 2025 NATO Summit in Brussels was pivotal. While Trump’s public demand for a collective 5% GDP defense spending target is a pressure tactic, Europe's actual capacity to pay remains constrained.

Economic headwinds characterized by sluggish recovery post-pandemic, inflationary pressures and rising energy costs make sweeping budget increases politically and financially infeasible. The result is a structural imbalance in which Europe remains dependent on the U.S. for nuclear deterrence, but cannot guarantee America’s commitment.

Moreover, Washington has signaled shifting priorities toward China and technology. The recent imposition of reciprocal tariffs on steel and chips—some sourced from Taiwan—has unnerved Brussels and Berlin alike.

The message, that Europe must either align more closely with U.S. techno-economic strategies or brace for marginalization, is clear. France’s call for strategic autonomy, expressed in President Emmanuel Macron’s concept of the "Europe that protects", reflects one path. However, without majority backing and forceful diplomatic leadership, it remains aspirational.

Strategic Autonomy—Vision or Mirage?

Among EU member states, France is the most vocal advocate for distancing from U.S. dominance. President Macron, along with Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, has pressed for an EU-level rapid-reaction force and independent deterrence capability.

Macron’s argument is that Europe must chart its own path in defense and foreign affairs. The 2026 European Defence Summit is meant to blueprint this military union.

However, skepticism abounds. Germany, long wary of autonomous military action, reiterates the need for NATO unity.

Smaller nations—notably the Baltics—fear political fragmentation. Without clear agreement on financing, EU command, or strategic objectives, the initiative lacks cohesion.

Europe remains fragmented. While the rhetoric of autonomy gains voice, its sovereignty is far from actualized.

China’s Strategic Posture in Europe—Economics Over Security

Beijing has continued to promote engagement with the EU, inviting European leaders to high-level dialogues on green technology, digital infrastructure, and trade. However, while Chinese state media reiterates themes of "win-win cooperation" and the enduring value of the European market, optimism on the European side is waning.

While 2025 marks the 50th anniversary of EU-China diplomatic relations, Brussels shows little interest in commemorating the milestone. Instead, escalating trade tensions are beginning to overshadow political motivations.

According to reports, the EU has canceled a major economic dialogue originally scheduled for late July, after repeated trade disputes showed no progress. This dialogue was meant to set the stage for a forthcoming EU-China leaders’ summit—now, expectations for any tangible outcomes from that summit are notably diminished.

The EU’s ambassador to China, Jorge Toledo (庹堯誨), recently stated that Brussels is prepared to walk away from key negotiations if there is no concrete progress. Issues such as China’s retaliatory actions over EU electric vehicle tariffs—most notably its threat to impose duties on French cognac—and Beijing’s rare earth export restrictions have further hardened attitudes in Europe.

Some of these measures were ostensibly directed at the United States. Despite this, the spillover effects on European industries have been significant.

While Beijing signals flexibility by lifting some sanctions on Members of the European Parliament, Europe appears less inclined to reciprocate without substantive policy change. A tougher EU stance on trade could signal the beginning of a more confrontational phase in the bilateral relationship.

The UK’s Shifted Posture and Taiwan’s Parliamentary Opportunity

Since the April 2025 election, the U.K.’s Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has adopted a pragmatic approach toward Beijing. Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy are pushing for renewed trade and investment talks, hoping to invigorate post-Brexit commerce.

Conservative and Labour opinion polls show voter fatigue with harsh China rhetoric. This has pushed the new administration to seek "strategic accommodation".

Westminster however remains divided. Among parliamentarians—especially new MPs—Taiwan awareness is negligible.

Few MPs have drama-free exposure to cross-strait dynamics, leaving them vulnerable to Chinese diplomatic clarifications. Again, this presents a critical window for Taiwan’s think-tanks, diplomatic network, and civic society to proactively engage UK legislators and analysts, and early investments now could influence British positions on WTO accession for Taiwan or high-level visits during the next European cycle.

In continental Europe, regional diplomacy can break new ground as city councils in Hamburg and Milan, tech hubs in Toulouse, and legislative caucuses in Berlin and Paris are often receptive to localized cultural or trading partnerships. These subnational relationships lend credibility and ballast to any future national-level shift toward Taiwan inclusion.

Conclusion: Shaping European Strategy Through Adaptive Diplomacy

Europe stands at a strategic inflection point—confronted with Russian aggression, American ambiguity, Chinese economic coercion, and internal cohesion challenges. The outcome depends on credible action across multiple fronts: scaling up defense capacity, recalibrating the transatlantic relationship, achieving consensus on strategic autonomy, and managing increasingly strained commercial ties with Beijing.

For Taiwan, this moment presents a rare and significant strategic opportunity. As Europe’s political, economic, and security relationships with China deteriorate, space is opening for Taiwan to step forward—not just as a beneficiary of European sympathy, but as a proactive partner.

Taiwan must seize this momentum to develop a more assertive and targeted strategy toward Europe. Taiwan must focus in particular on engaging the current British government and Parliament, while strengthening ties with Central and Eastern European democracies.

Efforts should go beyond elite-level diplomacy. Taiwan must work to cultivate broader public awareness and support across European societies, recognizing that lasting governmental policy shifts are often driven by bottom-up public pressure.

By aligning with European concerns such as democratic resilience, supply chain security, and technological integrity Taiwan can position itself not only as a like-minded partner, but as an indispensable contributor to Europe's evolving strategic architecture.

Moreover, even as the war in Ukraine continues, Taiwan should begin laying the groundwork for its role in post-war reconstruction. Early engagement, whether through technical assistance, infrastructure planning, or academic and civil society exchanges can elevate Taiwan’s standing in Ukraine and signal long-term commitment to European security and recovery.

This is no longer the time for symbolic diplomacy alone. Taiwan has the opportunity and responsibility to embed itself within the new European framework for democratic solidarity and global resilience. To do so requires strategic foresight, decisive action, and a renewed belief in the transformative power of principled engagement.