Follow us on social

europe flags

Poll: Europeans see US as 'necessary partner' not 'ally'

Is this 'the potential death knell of the Transatlantic Alliance'?

Reporting | QiOSK

Europeans increasingly see the United States as a “necessary partner” rather than an “ally,” according to a new poll of 14 European countries released Wednesday by the European Council on Foreign Relations.

The survey of more than 18,000 adults across the continent was conducted in the weeks following the U.S. presidential elections on Nov. 5, in which Donald Trump defeated his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris.

Trump did not take office until Jan 20, although his skepticism about transatlantic cooperation and NATO and his criticism of the European Union during his previous tenure as president (2017-2021) and during the election campaign were well known in Europe.

“Our new poll highlights a remarkable shift in public opinion — and, as a headline, the potential death knell of the Transatlantic Alliance,” asserted Arturo Varvelli, an ECFR senior fellow who co-authored a report that accompanied the poll’s release. “That Europeans, today, see the United States more as a ‘necessary partner’ than an ‘ally’ speaks to a collapse of trust in Washington’s foreign policy agenda.”

Fourteen countries were covered by the survey, including Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and Ukraine. All of the countries except the UK and Ukraine are EU members, and all except Ukraine are members of NATO.

The survey and the accompanying report, “Transatlantic twilight: European public opinion and the long shadow of Trump,” also found that Europeans believe that peace talks between Ukraine and Russia are imminent and that the most likely outcome of the nearly three-year-old war will be a “compromise settlement” in which neither country will achieve its optimal outcome.

Majorities or pluralities of respondents in even what have been the most hawkish countries, notably Estonia, Denmark, the UK, and Poland, appear reconciled to such an outcome, although they also support continuing to supply Kyiv with the weapons it needs to continue its fight.

Coincidentally, the poll’s release came on the same day that Trump held what he described as a “lengthy and highly productive phone call” with Russian President Vladimir Putin centered in major part on ending the war in Ukraine, characterizing it as the beginning of a negotiation to end the war in Ukraine, and that his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told a NATO meeting Ukraine’s hopes of restoring its pre-2014 borders were “unrealistic.”

The poll also found that Europeans still see China less favorably than the United States. An average of 43% of respondents across the continent said they see China as a “necessary partner” or “ally” of the EU, 35% said they regard it as a “rival” or “adversary.” The most pro-China sentiment was found in southern Europe, particularly Bulgaria, Hungary, Spain, Romania, Italy, and Portugal. Majorities or pluralities with much less favorable view were found in Germany, Denmark, the UK, and France, respectively.

But the most significant finding, according to the ECFR analysts, was the prevailing view in every EU member state and the UK that the U.S. could no longer be seen as an “ally,” but rather as a “necessary partner.”

That assessment held for respondents in even the traditionally most Atlanticist-oriented countries, such as Poland where 45% of respondents said “necessary partner” vs 31% “ally) and Denmark (53% vs. 30%), and even the UK (44% vs. 37%), which has enjoyed a “special relationship” with Washington dating back to the Second World War. Only 18 months earlier, majorities in those countries saw the US primarily as an ally.

Those countries where respondents were most likely to view the U.S. as a “necessary partner” included Ukraine (67% vs. 27%), Spain (57% vs. 14%), Estonia (55% vs. 28%), Portugal (55% vs. 18%) and Italy (53% vs. 18%).

ECFR’s analysts viewed this shift as potentially tectonic and attributed it mostly to perceptions of Trump based on his previous administration and statements.

“Donald Trump’s recent actions towards historic US allies show that the Atlantic community is no longer underpinned by shared values,” according to Jana Puglierin, a senior ECFR fellow and co-author of the report. “In a world of Trump 2.0, transactionality reigns… For EU leaders, this will require a positional shift, away from the Washington-led status quo, towards one that showcases internal unity and an ability for Europe to exert its own influence on the world stage.”

Whether such a shift is possible, however, will depend to a significant extent on whether such unity can be achieved.

Indeed, the poll found major divisions among respondents in different members states of views regarding Trump. Asked whether Trump’s return to power was a “good” or “bad” development, respondents in southeastern Europe, particularly in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, were more likely to see the president as positive for their own countries and world peace.

Conversely, clear majorities in Denmark, the UK, and Germany said they saw Trump’s return as “bad” news for their own countries and world peace.

While large majorities of respondents who identified with far-right parties in Hungary, Poland, and Italy said they believed Trump would be good for their countries and world peace, pluralities of self-described partisans of Germany’s AfD party and France’s Rassemblement National said they thought the U.S. president would be “bad” for their countries and world peace.

As for attitudes towards the EU itself, the report identified four groups: “Euro-optimists,” the largest group at 30% of respondents and strongest in Estonia, Denmark, Ukraine, Spain and Portugal, were inclined to see the Union as a great power unlikely to collapse within the next 20 years; “Europessimists” (22%) who disagree with both propositions and who are strongest among right-wing parties across the continent; “Euro-realists” (17%) who don’t think the EU will fail but are skeptical of its power and are strongest in Denmark, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany); and “Euro-mortalists” (11%) who see It as a great power but vulnerable to collapse.

The apparent decline in trust and confidence in the U.S.-European relationship, as evidenced by the downgrade from “ally” to “necessary partner” should prompt greater realism among leaders who support the EU, the report stressed. “This finding alone should sharpen minds about the need for Europe to embrace greater pragmatism and autonomy in its global dealings, as a means of protecting its citizens and values in the coming period,” according to Varbelli.


Top photo credit: Shutterstock/Markus Pfaff
Reporting | QiOSK
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.