Editor’s Note: One of the major themes of end-time Bible Prophecy is rise of Europe as the most powerful political, economic and military force among nations, just prior to the return of Jesus Christ. Since the establishment of the European Economic Community, (EEC) or “Common Market” by the Treaty of Rome, in 1957, Bible students have looked for signs of a dominant European force and leader which will astonish and amaze the entire world. (Revelation 13:3, Revelation 17:12-13)
The following essay is from Craig White, Historian, Archivist, Bible Scholar and observer of world events. You can follow Craig’s work @ Friends Of Sabbath
Will President Trump be to blame if Europe peels off in a different direction from America? Is he forcing them to look after their own affairs and forge a single military or has this been the trend anyhow?
By Craig M White
With President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher at the helm of the West during the 1980s, relief was provided from the onslaught of the Soviets without and from the advances of the politically correct Left from within.
Reagan himself called for the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall in June 1987 which sent academia, the media and the Left in general berserk, accusing him and conservatives of trying to cause WW3. How similar to the false allegations made against Trump. Yet the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and it was Communism that was sunk. We need to think of political precedence, cycles, rhyming and attempt to “look around corners” like any political analyst or policy analyst/developer, rather than the current knee-jerk reaction by some.
The thinking by some in the 1980s was that after Reagan and Thatcher, the Anglo-Keltic and Scandinavian nations would move far Left-Liberal while Europe would slide extreme Right and militarise.
At that time the EU was fairly conservative, the Pope John Paul II was calling for Europe to: “Revive your roots. Experience again those authentic values that made your history glorious and your presence in other continents beneficial.”
Helmut Kohl and other European leaders were conservative by today’s standards and quite sensible calling for greater European unity and for the continent to take a much larger world role. Germany, he exclaimed must “build the house of Europe”.
“What would be the trigger for the EU to adopt remilitarisation?” I pondered. Could it be a world economic collapse? A mini-American civil war? Or something quite unexpected?
Everything seemed to line up with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the nations of Central Europe gaining independence and joining the European Union (EU) and NATO.
Then the opposite began to occur and accelerate to this day: Europe turned radical Left in social, immigration and economic policies as did the Anglo-Keltic sphere.
Politicians, institutions and society progressed from the liberalism of the late 1960/70s to Political Correctness and on to the next stage, Wokeness exactly as postulated by the Eurocommunists. Wokeness is social Marxism.
“What is Eurocommunism?” you may ask. It is all around you now!
The late 1960s saw the rise of the “New Left” also known as the “New Class”. It emanated out of Western universities heavily influence by the Leninist or Trotskyite variant of Communism in lieu of the Stalinist and later Brezhnevian style of Communism. The latter had become rather nationalist, pro-family, anti-sexual identity such as homosexuality while the Western universities taught the original Communism (and not that of the Stalinist and post-WW2 variety).
The New Left gained traction, in part, due to the disgust with the Soviet oppression that went on in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and leverage they gained off the back of the anti-Vietnam War movement. They found expression in the hippie movement, flower children, Black Panthers, feminism, legalised prostitution, legalised pornography and such like. The New Left were less interested in economics and nationalised industries and put much greater emphasis on sexual freedoms, abortion, euthanasia, globalisation, a world melting pot and the gradual elimination of marriage and the family unit, just like the early Communists. They viewed themselves as humanists striving for the triumph of the individual in place of family and nation – an individual who would be a world citizen, part of a global collective of individuals devoid of restrictions. A World Government would be organised which would liberate mankind from those restrictions allowing it to reach for new heights.
It is this variant of Communism – much closer to the original aims of Marx and co – that they strive for and have unfurled upon the West. Much of this philosophy can be found in DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies, also known as social engineering.
Recent Developments: Enter Trump
Trump is now unwinding much of the DEI programs imposed upon American society by the federal government. The media is not too happy about that.
Also, despite the wrist ringing by anti-Trump types and continuing media bias if not outright lying:
“President Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy is doing the opposite of what many think – it is strengthening NATO and investing America in Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. But it is doing so in a way that is realistic and is intended actually to work rather than sound nice.” (Eugene Kontorovich, “The True Story Behind Donald Trump’s Stance on NATO and Ukraine”, 19fortyfive.com, 15 March 2025)
This is true realpolitik in action due to the Trump administration’s lateral thinking and not an ad hoc, chaotic and almost childish approach by the European leaders, unable to sort out the problems within the own countries, let alone Ukraine’s. Problems, in many cases, they have themselves inflicted upon their base.
A recent edition of German Foreign Policy contained this insightful statement that should put us all on alert:
“In view of the Trump administration’s power play, calls are getting louder in Germany for the European Union to become an independent force on the global stage. As a statement from the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) put it, “Europe must mobilise its ample resources to replace America as a global leader.” Berlin and Brussels are setting out unprecedented spending plans, in the high three-digit billion range, for arming Germany and the EU. Proponents of rapid militarisation want to procure European weaponry rather than American. This view is now being adopted even by traditionally transatlantic-aligned media.” (“We’re a global power”,german-foreign-policy, 10 March 2025)
What is going on? Why this sudden change in stance by the European Union?
Actually, it isn’t a sudden change and any attempt to ‘blame’ Trump for Europe beginning to cleave from America does not fit the historical developments over many years as shall be outlined below. Europe, has, instead, been provoking American and testing its patience. It is to blame for the current strain within the Atlantic Alliance, not America.
So many exaggerations have been published by the left-leaning media about Trump that it is time to equalise out their elitist narrative.
One such narrative is that the whole of Europe is opposed to him and his plans. Is that accurate? To balance this have a read of “European Opposition to Trump is Heavily Overstated”, The American Conservative, 11 March 2025 by Scott McConnell; “Why Tariffs are Good”, Tabletmag, 8 March 2025; “The EU Has Been Imposing Tariffs on American Products for Decades”, TheDailySkeptic, 17 March 2025 by Robert Kogon)
Returning to Kontorovich’s article, he further explains;
“Trump understands that paper promises are worthless and suggested a new approach to cementing alliances – by creating real joint interests. The mineral deal between the two countries makes the U.S. directly invested in Ukraine’s territorial integrity, an interest that will exist across administrations.”
This is realpolitik, not the tripe, emotional frenzy and absolute nonsense that amateurs conjure up without analysis or in-depth understanding. The European recalcitrant brats seem unable to comprehend any of this. Or they are deliberately attempting to stir up an international hornet’s nest against the Trump administration with the support of the international media, universities and various peak bodies such as think-tanks.
All Trump did was provide a fillip for this gradual transformation of the Atlantic Alliance.
For at least twenty-five years, U.S. security experts and leaders have urged their European NATO allies to enhance their defence budgets. Initially, this was a gentle suggestion, but it later escalated to a more forceful demand, culminating in a significant ROAR following the election of President Trump. The European brats have been living off America, draining it of resources for far too long and now it is up to them to look after themselves.
The notable press conference at the White House with President Volodymyr Zelensky on 1 March this year served as a wake-up call for Europeans, prompting them to reconsider their defence expenditures, a development that American analysts have greeted with satisfaction.
European nations are now engaging in a military spending spree to meet an arbitrary GDP target or a specific monetary figure, while acquiring weapon systems favored by lobbyists but lacking in practical relevance, which is an inadequate substitute for a thorough European security strategy.
They seem poised to allocate substantial financial resources without clear justification, disregarding significant recent technological and tactical advancements on the Ukrainian front.
“But we Europeans seem to have an institutional incapacity to think two steps ahead. As a result, we aren’t asking the important questions: such as what capabilities does Ukraine need to win the war? Where are the bottlenecks, and how can we fix them? What are the end-game scenarios? What would be an acceptable second-best outcome? What does it mean to win, or to lose?” (Wolfgang Manchau, “Trump has Europe in check. We have lost the art of strategy”, Unherd, 10 March 2025)
Indeed, this generation of European leaders are cunning and semi-authoritarian, but not that bright!
As such, it seems probable that America is far too powerful for Europe to contend with at the moment. And if Trump gets his policies implemented, America will continue to dominate for a while yet, following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan (read W. James Antle III, “Trump’s Economy: The Reagan Story and the Biden Story?” The American Conservative, 12 March 2025).
If militarism has proven detrimental to the United States—resulting in extended conflicts that fail to enhance security, undermining the well-being of American society, allowing arms lobbies to dominate its political landscape, and eroding democratic principles—what rationale exists for believing that such militarism would benefit Europe?
In reviewing the literature on the subject of European rearmament, I pose the question: “what if the EU is seized somehow, some day, by the extreme Right?” Given that it will by then have at its disposal a European defence force – or at least the foundations of one – what will it do with it if and when it truly divides from America on political, religious and economic grounds?
Are we seeing unintended consequences in the making?
Let us explore the historical development toward a single European military and where that may lead.
It seems that from now on, there will be no reversion to the status quo ante.
History of Defence chatter
To many observers, including yours truly, the forging of a single European military is axiomatic.
It is important to understand the forces behind a European Defence Force (EDF) and the rationale behind it.
There have been many pan-European white papers, conferences, open debates, think-tank discussions, scholarly articles and papers and even joint naval and army exercises over the years, long prior to the first presidency of Trump. These have always edged toward greater European military cooperation and integration but at a snail’s pace.
Through Trump’s urging, European nations increased their defence spending during his first presidency. It now looks like they will increase spending again, but this time by the extension of debt which is at a shocking level EU-wide (in addition to provincial and local government debts).
Historically, the concept of a European defence force originated in the 1950s, beginning with the proposal for a European Defence Community (EDC) in 1950, which ultimately did not come to fruition.
In October 1950, René Pleven, the Prime Minister of France, put forward a proposal for the establishment of a European Army governed by a supranational authority and financed through a shared budget, referred to as the European Defence Community (EDC). The EDC aimed to function as a multinational defence force within NATO, featuring plans for joint divisions, standardized uniforms, shared weaponry, and a collective budget. Nevertheless, the EDC initiative ultimately failed in 1954 when the French parliament did not ratify the treaty.
In the aftermath of the European Defence Community’s (EDC) failure, discussions commenced to amend the Brussels Treaty of 1948 and to incorporate Germany into NATO, which was successfully achieved in 1955.
In the same year, the West European Union (WEU) was formed to promote military cooperation which even possessed its own Parliament and committees for various cultural and social matters. These committees were transferred to the Council of Europe in 1960 (not to be confused with the EU).
In 1995, the Council of Ministers of the WEU announced the establishment of the European Operational Rapid Force (EUROFOR). This task force became operational in June 1998 as part of the WEU.
To address security and defence matters collectively, in 2003 the EU established the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Then in 2004, the European Defence Agency (EDA) was founded to improve the development of defence capabilities and to encourage cooperation among EU member states.
In 2010, the ten full Member States of the WEU declared that the organisation would cease operations by the middle of the following year.
In 2011 the EU took over its defence and foreign affairs functions, and the WEU disappeared into history. The meant that the EU now had the legal avenues to forge its own military union.
In 2017, the EU initiated the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), a framework designed to deepen defence collaboration by jointly developing defence capabilities for EU military operations.
What of nuclear weapons? France has touted that its weapons could be used as a defensive shield for Europe and even stationing some in Germany. That was many years prior to Trump, resuscitated in 2023 when Biden was President and again in 2025. The legal, political and logistical hurdles would be tremendous to overcome to undertake this initiative.
Germany itself is not permitted to build nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Chemical Weapons Convention.
In addition to this, industry executives claim that limits on finance, export transit permissions, and environmental regulations—all implemented by the EU in collaboration with members of the weapons sector—are impeding investment and growth.
But times are changing, and although the above are serious hurdles, they can be overcome in due course, but this all takes time.
A European Defence Force on the Horizon
In many ways Europe today is fraying at the edges, but it will not always be that way.
Europe must allocate approximately 3.5% of its GDP over the next ten years to adequately prepare its military forces to any possible future Russian threat, independent of any American support. Until this investment is made, the collective military capabilities of Europe will remain susceptible to potential Russian incursions in the Baltic region.
“Europe’s Shock Therapy is Working on Europe” declared Newsweek 22 March 2025. Yet, it will take many years to catch up to America’s awesome power. For example, Rudy Ruitenberg writing in the eminent Defence News, noted that “Europe’s very own missile for piercing air defenses is years away” (17 March 2025).
If Europe were to forge a united military under a single command structure tomorrow, it would take many years to build all the weaponry it needs to come anywhere near America. Let alone operate gigantic global bases.
The previously referred to article in German Foreign Policy continues:
“By embarking on a policy of compulsory militarisation in Europe and moving towards an exclusive focus on national interests for all German activities abroad, Berlin is reviving a longstanding goal of the German elites: namely, to deal with the United States “on an equal footing”. Back in 1966, the then CSU leader and former Defence Minister (1956 to 1962) Franz Josef Strauß spoke out in favour of “a united Europe” rising to “the position of an independent power between the United States and the [then] Soviet Union”.[11] In 2003, Werner Weidenfeld, then an advisor to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, wrote in an article in the Springer-owned newspaper Die Welt that the EU already had potential strengths that can “define the status of a global power”. Indeed, he saw the EU as superior to the US in some key areas. “The integrated Europe,” he wrote, “is a world power in the making.” Ideas for giving Germany a much stronger role on the world stage have been discussed many times. In 2020, for example, a piece entitled “More courage to assume global power” in the weekly Die Zeit reflected this trend by urging EU leadership in world affairs. The title of an article in the Welt am Sonntag in 2020, co-authored by former International Development Minister Gerd Müller ran “Europe has the makings of a world power.” [emphasis mine]
We should now consider the unintended consequences of a European defence force: What if radical right-wing forces take over the EU?
It appears that Europeans possess an institutional inability to anticipate future developments. Consequently, they fail to pose critical questions, including: what capabilities must Ukraine acquire to achieve victory in the war? What are the existing obstacles, and how can they be addressed?
They are all over the place, confused, incoherent and unable to deliver on the big statements that they make with their big mouths! Such are the brats.
Unbeknown to them, due to their arrogance, it is unlikely that the European Union will remain in its current formation due to its own, internal civilisational fissures.
In a previous article, (Trump 2.0 and the Roots of his Realpolitik) I referenced The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington and I mentioned that there are fissures within civilisations that can come into conflict, not only between civilisations. Europe itself contains several such mini civilisations:
- Western Europe and Scandinavia
- Central (Mittel) Europa
- South-eastern Europe
- Southern Europe
- East Europe and Russia
Look at the shocking conflict between Russia and the Ukraine – this is an example of conflict within a civilisation even when the people, language and religion are similar.
Yet, consider this: there are huge undercurrents today which are being suppressed by the EU elites. These undercurrents are flowing in the opposite direction to the elites and something has to give.
We are witnessing the tide of European peoples moving toward the right, while the elites crazily hold on to power, pushing Europe ever leftward. Every time in places such as Germany, Austria, Fance, Poland, Rumania or Italy where the centre-right are gaining ground, the elite’s resort to all sorts of undemocratic tactics.
Something big is underway: the European peoples are beginning to move toward the Centre from the left, frustrating the elites. But what if the people of Europe continue to slide even further right while the Anglo-Keltic nations move leftwards in years to come? Europe will need a leader – someone of noble or perhaps royal stock who can galvanise the nations of Europe, leading them on a new, glorious path, historically connected to the Holy Roman Empire of old.
Historian Desmond Seward cynically pondered “… modern communications made possible the Fuhrer-state [Albert Speer said]. If this is really the reason why Hitler was able to do so much more evil than Napoleon–or even only one of the reasons–then technological progress should ensure that the next ‘national saviour’ on the scene will be infinitely more terrible. Antichrist is yet to come. Perhaps the Emperor and the Fuhrer were merely forerunners.” (Napoleon and Hitler: A Comparative Biography, p. 269) [emphasis mine]
NB: Seward is a historian, not a scholar of prophecy, but he knows the cycles of history and what can occur in the future. That a ‘saviour’ may be needed and called on again to save Europe from a fate that would mean that it will no longer exist as a civilization due to the relentless attacks by the woke and globalist Left.
World News & Prophecy Review
Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media site by clicking the Share button below.