When "Isolationism" Knocks Again: Is "Abandoning Europe" America's Choice or the Era's Trap?

At the 2023 Munich Security Conference, a European diplomat quipped half-jokingly: "In the past, we worried America was too overbearing; now we fear it’s becoming too 'laid-back'—even reluctant to collect its 'protection fees.'" This remark captures the current unease in transatlantic relations: On one side, Donald Trump rallies supporters with cries of "NATO is obsolete; Europe should pay its own bills." On the other, French President Emmanuel Macron declares Europe’s entry into a "new era of strategic autonomy," while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz travels to India with a speech titled "A Turning Point for the Times." As the old banner of "isolationism" is raised again by American political forces and the call to "abandon Europe" moves from campaign trails to policy drafts, the transatlantic alliance—a giant ship that has sailed for over seven decades—is steering into uncharted stormy waters.
I. The "American Gene" of Isolationism: From "Avoidance" to "Blame-Shifting"
Isolationism has never been a foreign policy label for the U.S.; it is the "undercurrent" of its geopolitical strategy. From Washington’s Farewell Address warning against "permanent alliances with foreign nations," to the Neutrality Acts that isolated America from European wars pre-WWII, to the early Cold War McCarthyism that feared international engagement, isolationism has long been a conservative impulse in U.S. politics. Yet this "isolation" was always a privilege of power—by the time the U.S. emerged from two world wars as a "global hegemon," it was no longer the fledgling nation needing to "hide across the Atlantic."
The end of the Cold War unleashed America’s ambition to "intervene globally": from the Gulf War’s "Desert Storm" to NATO’s eastward expansion, from exporting "color revolutions" to the Afghan "democracy experiment," the U.S. spent two decades positioning itself as the "world’s policeman." But the 2008 financial crisis, the chaotic 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, and the 2023 Israel-Hamas stalemate have acted as cold showers, shattering the myth of "American exceptionalism." When the U.S. realized it could no longer control even its "small partners" in the Middle East, when deindustrialization led Rust Belt workers to vote for "anti-globalization" candidates, the once-"global intervener" suddenly found retreat easier than expansion.
Thus, isolationism returned in a new guise—"America First." Trump’s "withdrawals" (from TPP, the Paris Agreement), Biden’s "friend-shoring," and today’s calls to "abandon Europe" are all reflections of America’s reassessment of its own capabilities: If it can no longer bear "global responsibilities," it will retrench resources to its "backyard." But this "retreat" is not a清醒 strategic adjustment but classic "blame-shifting"—using "Europe should stand on its own" to mask declining strategic capacity, using "tariffs" to deflect domestic discontent, and using "ally funding" to plug fiscal gaps.
II. "Abandoning Europe"? A Lose-Lose Game America Can’t Afford
Can America truly "abandon Europe"? Two sets of data tell the story: In 2022, U.S.-EU trade reached 850 billion, accounting for 17% of total U.S. trade; Europe holds over 2.8 trillion in U.S. debt, 23% of all foreign-held Treasuries. More critically, Europe remains the "cash cow" of U.S. tech giants—Google earns 30% of its global ad revenue in Europe, Apple’s European market share exceeds its U.S. home market by 5%, and Tesla’s Berlin factory contributes 60% of its European sales.
If America truly "abandons Europe," the first to collapse would be America’s own economic lifelines. A shrinking European market would slash U.S. corporate profits, triggering stock market volatility and rising unemployment; a sell-off of European-held Treasuries could spike U.S. borrowing costs, escalating government debt risks; and without European support, America’s clout in international organizations would plummet—UN Security Council resolutions, IMF reforms, and WTO rule-making all require European "buy-in."
For Europe, being "abandoned by America" is not new. From the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis, where the U.S. "betrayed" its allies, to the 1999 Kosovo War where Europe’s "autonomous military action" faltered, to the 2003 Iraq War where France and Germany openly opposed the U.S., Europe has long grown accustomed to "America First." But this time is different: Europe is finally acting. The EU has passed the Strategic Autonomy Act, raising defense spending from 2% to 2.5% of GDP; the Franco-German "Future Air Combat System" (FCAS) project has entered prototype testing, aiming to replace U.S.-made F-35s by 2040; and traditionally pro-U.S. nations like Italy and Poland have restarted natural gas talks with Russia, while Hungary has repeatedly vetoed EU sanctions on Moscow.
Europe’s "awakening" stems not from ideological opposition but from being "burned by America": Over 20 years of war in Afghanistan cost Europe €300 billion, only to see the Taliban return to Kabul; sanctions on Russia to placate the U.S. sent European energy prices surging 300%, forcing German chemical giant BASF to shut down domestic plants; and America’s shale revolution turned Europe from an "energy importer" into a "dumping ground" for U.S. LNG. As French President Macron put it: "When America only cares about its own election cycles, Europe must learn to fight for itself."
III. Cracks in the Global Order: Who Benefits, Who Pays?
America’s "retreat" and Europe’s "autonomy" are tearing apart the post-WWII global order. On one hand, non-Western powers like Russia and China are expanding influence: Russia deepens economic ties with Europe via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (despite U.S. sanctions); China signs the RCEP with ASEAN and pushes the Belt and Road Initiative across the Middle East and Africa. On the other hand, Global South nations (India, Brazil, South Africa) are refusing to "take sides"—Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar stated plainly: "We refuse to be pawns in anyone’s camp."
But the biggest losers remain ordinary people. U.S. tariffs on Europe have raised German car prices by 15% in the U.S. market, costing American consumers $8 billion annually; European retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agriculture have left Iowa corn farmers dumping unsold grain into the Mississippi River; and with the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism paralyzed, global trade rules are in chaos. Multinational companies are restructuring supply chains to evade tariffs, dragging global GDP growth down by 0.8 percentage points (World Bank data).
More dangerously, the shadow of a new Cold War looms. As America pushes European allies toward "autonomy," Russia becomes irreconcilable with the West over Ukraine, and China is labeled a "systemic challenge," the world is fragmenting into "U.S.-led," "European-led," and "China-Russia-led" blocs. This is not "multipolarity" but "atomization," trapping all nations in a "security dilemma": You build up arms, so I build more advanced ones; you impose tariffs, so I retaliate; you block technology, so I go it alone.
Isolationism’s Old Ticket Won’t Board Globalization’s New Ship
From Washington to Trump, some Americans believe "retreating to the island" solves all problems. But history has proven: In an era of deep globalization, "abandoning Europe" is equivalent to abandoning America’s own global leadership; isolationism’s old ticket cannot board the 21st-century "new ship" dominated by digital economy, climate change, and AI.
For Europe, "strategic autonomy" is not "anti-American" but "not putting all eggs in one basket." For America, "strategic contraction" is not "surrender" but "redefining its role"—from "leader" to "partner." After all, as China and France’s aircraft carriers conduct joint exercises in the Mediterranean, as Russia and India’s fighter jets "show off" over the Middle East, and as African nations debate "de-dollarization," the world has long outgrown the era when America "called the shots."
Perhaps, as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in his 2023 New Year’s address: "The future of transatlantic relations lies not in 'abandonment' or 'dependency,' but in finding new balance amid differences—for our common adversary have never been each other, but those who seek to divide the world."