The Transatlantic Alliance: a marriage in crisis

Long regarded as the backbone of the Western economic order, the transatlantic relationship is showing cracks beneath the surface.

“Arguing that the transatlantic partnership is stronger than ever is a fallacy.”

Divorce, a friendly split or just a marriage in crisis? The marital metaphor is more useful than ever in describing the relationship between Europe and the United States. The truth is that these blocs seem to be speaking different languages today. For Finnish President Alexander Stubb, it is a “fallacy” to believe that the transatlantic partnership continues to thrive.

This reality invites reflection on the current state of the transatlantic alliance, between political values and economic interests, in light of the statements made by Finnish President Alexander Stubb in an interview with The Economist on 14 February.

“We need to cordially disagree.”

The emergence of the Make America Great Again movement and the political logic associated with the America First slogan of the current US administration has significantly altered European perceptions of the United States. Alexander Stubb summarises this change with particular clarity when he states that America “has changed its tack”: US policy has become more conservative in its values, more financial in its interests and less dependent on alliances. He adds, however, that we should “cordially disagree” with the US, suggesting a need to manage differences with Washington without jeopardising the transatlantic partnership.

Nevertheless, some European leaders seem to be partially distancing themselves from this logic. Emmanuel Macron has announced a doctrine of “forward deterrence” that envisages greater cooperation between France and European countries to strengthen common defence. Similarly, Ursula von der Leyen argued at the World Economic Forum in January that Europe's independence is now a consensual strategy.

One thing is certain: the disagreement between the US and Europe is no longer episodic, it has become ideological and strategic. The central question now becomes: how will Europe react? Is it economically prepared to gain strategic autonomy?

The answer depends largely on Europe's ability to invest in key strategic sectors such as technology, defence and energy. In these areas, high initial research and development (R&D) costs make economies of scale crucial to reducing average production costs. Europe has a large-scale economic market, but it is not a single state. While political fragmentation prevents the continent from speaking with one voice, economic fragmentation limits the emergence of large business groups comparable to those in the US. This economic fragmentation is reflected in the absence of a true banking and capital markets union in the EU, which remains divided into 27 financial markets

“We need to work on areas where we have common interests.”

The EU and the US form the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world. In 2024, transatlantic trade in goods and services exceeded €1.68 trillion, almost 30% of global trade.

Yet, the dependency is not symmetrical. As Carsten Brzeski of ING notes, Europe has traditionally been more export-oriented and structurally more dependent on external trade and imported key resources, while the US represents a more insulated and autonomous economy. This asymmetry leaves the

European economy particularly exposed to trade shocks or protectionist measures adopted by Washington.

The automotive industry exposes this vulnerability. Germany, Europe's largest economy, exports more than half of the cars it produces, unlike the US, whose vast domestic market allows it to use tariffs as an instrument of economic pressure. By making European products more expensive, tariffs reduce the competitiveness of these exports, which can decline significantly when demand is price sensitive. This may result in lower revenues, investment and employment, and potentially encourage the relocation of European production to the US.

European dependence extends to other areas. Europe is the largest importer of energy, while the US is the largest exporter, a reality that became evident after the invasion of Ukraine, when the European continent began importing large quantities of American liquefied natural gas. At the same time, the vast scale of American capital, innovation, and technological capacity, continues to make the country a gravitational centre of the global economy.

The relationship may not be symmetrical, but it is not unilateral either. As Alexander Stubb reminds us, cooperation should focus on areas of common interest: for Washington, it is important that Finland, with its 1,340 km border with Russia, maintains one of the largest armies in Europe, as well as the defence capabilities of Sweden and Norway in the Arctic, and the prevention of Russian spheres of influence across the continent.

“Deal with the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.”

Perhaps this is the phrase that best encapsulates the spirit of Alexander Stubb's words. More than a diagnosis of the transatlantic relationship, it is an invitation to realism. The Finnish president, however, makes an appeal consistent with this realism: recognising the fragility of this partnership does not mean giving up on it, but ensuring that it “is not going to crumple”.

For centuries, Europe found in the United States not only a strategic ally, but also a partner in a common institutional project. Yet, that world seems more distant today.

Washington is reorganising its priorities and viewing the international system with an almost cynical pragmatism. The world order is no longer just defended, it is shaped, if necessary, by economic pressure, political coercion or the use of force. For Europe, this means taking a clear strategic position: to what extent does it want to remain an ally of the United States, and on what terms?

The transatlantic partnership is going through a period of turbulence. As in any long marriage, the question is no longer whether the relationship has changed, but whether it still has the capacity to withstand the wear and tear that time inevitably brings.

Because, after all, alliances, like marriages, do not survive on memories alone.