The events of the past weekend have left many observers with the feeling that they are watching the drama of history unfold before their eyes. The content of the speeches delivered by the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President of the United States at NATO Headquarters and at the Munich Security lecture , respectively, were expected and expected in substance, but they were devastating in form: an unmitigated rebuke to their European partners and allies.

The practical consequences of both discourses are yet to be fully seen, and may yet change the course of history. Whatever they may be, it is undeniable at this point that the transatlantic link has suffered considerable damage. The United States seems no longer willing to cover Europe's back unconditionally, and the security guarantee it has been extending to the continent since 1945 will now depend on the allies satisfying the requirements imposed from Washington; an asymmetrical relationship in which everything has a price.

The tenor of both speeches starkly reveals the little respect America has for its European partners, whom it considers decadent and inoperative; Trump's purely realist and transactional vision of foreign relations - forgetting that the American presence in Europe responds, above all, to the need to satisfy its geostrategic interests; and the sad realities of Europe's helplessness in the face of the threats it faces, and that, if it does not react, it is condemned to irrelevance, if it is not already fully installed in it. The meeting of European countries hastily organized in Paris, with its liturgy of complaints from those not summoned and differences of opinion on the European role in this grave circumstance, only adds to the wound.

There will be those who will consider that Europe is reaping today what it has sown over several decades by ignoring the demands of a defense worthy of the name. Europe chose to become a military dwarf and, consequently, President Trump has now decided, because he can, to settle the future of Ukraine bilaterally with Russia and without taking into account either Ukraine or the continent. Such a vision is not without merit, but it is unfair in this particular case because, with all the limitations one may wish, European financial and material attendance to Ukraine has not been minor, and because the continent has had to make a major effort - from which the United States has benefited - to reduce its dependence on Russian energy resources. Moreover, the issue at stake affects it directly, since it lives side by side with Russia in Eurasia without being able to benefit from the protective moat of the Atlantic.

Negotiations have only just begun and their contours are still vague. The idea of deploying a multinational European peacekeeping force in Ukraine seems to be emerging as one of the demands that Trump could make to his partners. If, in the end, Russia were to agree to such a deployment, the Europeans would probably go along with the decision so as not to further indispose the United States. To do so, however, requires first clarifying crucial aspects such as the need for a UN Security committee resolution - where, let us not forget, Great Britain and France have the right of veto; or those of the specific mission statement to be fulfilled by the forces, the conditions for the use of force, or the desired final status to proceed with the redeployment. The force should also have a robust command and control system, and essential enablers such as communications, intelligence, or air defense. Finally, it would have to have a strong reservation and credible support from other means to deter Russia from attacking or harassing the forces deployed in Ukraine. All this, at present, makes a minimal U.S. contribution essential.

Accepting deployment without a satisfactory answer to these questions entails accepting significant risks - what if, for example, a NATO member is attacked by Russia? Whether to participate is a sovereign decision for each of the European countries concerned who, for the sake of their own security, should not relent in their demand to have a voice in making decisions that so seriously affect them.

Trump's arrival has opened a parenthesis that can be closed, returning to normality, when his mandate ends. Europe must prepare itself, however, for the worst-case scenario; consider that transatlantic relations will never return to what they were before; and make a virtue out of necessity, moving in the direction of achieving genuine strategic autonomy hand in hand with NATO, which, despite all odds, remains vital for continental security.