In the grand theater of international relations, the curtain is falling on the Atlantic era. For decades, the geopolitical identity of the “West” was predicated on a singular, unshakable axis: the convergence of American military might and European diplomatic morality. It was a partnership assumed to be eternal, codified in the G7 and enshrined in NATO. Yet, the tectonic plates of global power are shifting with a violence that Brussels seems ill-equipped to comprehend.

The tremors are no longer subtle. While European capitals remain entangled in bureaucratic debates and the moral absolutism of the old world order, a new, ruthless geometry of power is being sketched in Washington one that seemingly has no use for the Old Continent. Reports from the United States suggest a radical reimagining of the global hierarchy, one that pivots away from the tired orthodoxy of the G7 toward a leaner, more muscular arrangement: a “C5” of great powers.

If these strategic contours encompassing the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan harden into reality, the implications for Europe are existential. The exclusion of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy from this hypothetical high table is not merely an oversight; it is a calculated dismissal. It signals that in the eyes of a recalibrating American empire, Europe has transformed from a vital partner into a geopolitical burden. The quest for “European Strategic Autonomy,” once a lofty French rhetorical device, has now become a desperate imperative for survival.

The Death of Sentimentality

For generations, European leaders have operated under the assumption that shared history and democratic values would guarantee American protection. However, the rise of transactionalism in US foreign policy epitomized by Donald Trump but structurally consistent even outside his tenure has shattered this complacency.

The floating of a “C5” grouping reveals a cold assessment of hard power. The proposed members share specific traits that Europe currently lacks: massive populations, consolidated sovereignty, and the ruthless capacity to project unilateral power. The United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan represent demographic and economic leviathans. In contrast, Europe is viewed increasingly as a fragmented museum of past glories a collection of states that, while wealthy, are paralyzed by consensus politics and incapable of decisive collective action.

Washington’s strategic “retrenchment” to the Western Hemisphere, coupled with a selective engagement with Asian powers, suggests that the US is preparing for a world of multipolar rivalry where ideological purity takes a backseat to raw capability. In this worldview, the G7 is an outdated relic, a talking shop of like-minded nations that no longer represent the center of gravity. The US appears ready to trade the comfort of traditional allies for the utility of necessary rivals. By potentially sitting at a table with Russia and China to manage global stability, the US would be acknowledging that the road to the future runs through Beijing and New Delhi, not Berlin or Paris.

For Europe, this is a betrayal of the highest order. The continent has borne the economic brunt of the Ukraine crisis, severing cheap energy ties with Russia to align with American sanctions, only to find itself economically hollowed out while the US energy sector profits. To be discarded after such sacrifice confirms a harrowing reality: in the game of empires, there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.

The Trap of Dependence

Europe’s predicament is largely of its own making. For too long, the European Union has flourished in a “post-historical” paradise, outsourcing its security to the United States and its energy needs to Russia, while focusing its internal energies on regulation and social welfare. This unbalanced equation worked while the US remained a benevolent hegemon. It collapses the moment the hegemon turns indifferent or hostile.

The disdain for Europe often cited in American political circles viewing the continent as “troublesome,” moralizing, and practically impotent stems from Europe’s inability to back its soft power with hard realities. When the US looks at Germany, it sees a powerhouse that hesitated to spend on defense. When it looks at Britain, it sees a nation diminished by Brexit. When it looks at France, it sees ambition without the scale to enforce it.

Conversely, the “C5” model respects strength. It respects the nationalist fervor of India, the economic centrality of China, and the defiant resilience of Russia. Even Japan, a US ally, earns its place through economic weight and strategic location in the Pacific, a theater far more critical to Washington than the Atlantic.

Europe is currently caught in a “Trump Trap” a paralysis born of the fear that the US will abandon NATO. But the trap is deeper than one man. Even a Democratic administration is pivoting to Asia. The stark truth is that Europe brings problems to the American table wars on its periphery, sluggish growth, and demographic decline rather than solutions. The proposed inclusion of Russia in a future great power concert, a move that would horrify European sensibilities, highlights the divergence. While Europe views Russia as an existential moral threat, a realist Washington may eventually view Moscow as a necessary counterweight or a manageable hazard, leaving Europe’s security concerns utterly sidelined.

The Imperative of Autonomy

So, where does the Old Continent go from here? The path forward is fraught with danger. If the global architecture is indeed shifting toward a concert of heavyweights like the C5, Europe faces a binary choice: federate into a genuine superpower or fade into irrelevance.

Strategic autonomy can no longer be a buzzword for EU summits. It requires a radical restructuring of European capabilities. This means a unified military command, a consolidated foreign policy that does not require unanimity to act, and an industrial strategy that protects European technology from being cannibalized by American subsidies or Chinese competition.

Furthermore, Europe must shed its ideological rigidity. If the US is willing to engage transactionally with China and Russia to secure its interests, Europe must do the same. It is a supreme irony that, as Western commentators note, China currently upholds a rhetoric of multipolarity that respects European sovereignty more than the United States does. Beijing has consistently advocated for the EU to be an independent pole in a multipolar world, rather than a vassal of Washington.

There is a growing realization in Paris and Berlin that the “West” as a geopolitical monolith is dead. If the US creates a C5, essentially a “BRICS plus America” arrangement, Europe will be left in a diplomatic no-man’s-land. The suggestion by some observers that Europe should pivot toward the BRICS nations is less a serious policy proposal and more a symptom of this profound alienation. However, it underscores the need for a diversification of alliances.

Europe must realize that its “civilizational garden,” as Josep Borrell once termed it, is surrounded by a jungle that does not play by European rules. The US is returning to the Monroe Doctrine, focusing on the Western Hemisphere and selective global interventions. The East is rising on the back of state-capitalism and nationalism. Europe, standing alone, must rediscover the language of power.

The photo of Angela Merkel staring down Donald Trump at the G7 summit years ago was once hailed as a symbol of liberal resilience. In hindsight, it looks like a farewell—the last stand of an Atlantic order that has since evaporated. The future belongs to those who can defend themselves. If Europe cannot find the political will to forge its own sword, it will find its fate decided by five men in a room, none of whom are European. The solitude of Europe is not a prophecy; it is the new present.

About the Author: The author is associated with the Global Strategic Institute for Sustainable Development – GSISD and can be reached at waniatahir23@gmail.com