Recently, EU leaders have had intensive communication and frequent meetings, successively introducing major measures on defense and security, demonstrating a firm determination to strengthen independent defense to the outside world. Since Trump took office, the significant shift in US diplomacy, especially towards European policy, seems to have completely "abandoned illusions" among European allies and taken an unprecedented approach to carefully examine and adjust their own defense strategies. At the "watershed moment" in early March, leaders of the 27 EU countries gathered in Brussels for emergency talks on European defense and Ukraine issues. The meeting proposed that "the EU is committed to taking more responsibility for its own defense and taking better actions to independently respond to current and future challenges and threats." On March 20th, the EU summit was held again, and defense and Ukraine issues remained the focus of discussion. This month's two summits are not only seen as the EU's response to the Ukrainian crisis, but also as important turning points for Europe's move towards defense autonomy. Europe has reached a watershed moment European Commission President von der Leyen's statement is full of ambition. She emphasized that Europe is facing a very obvious real threat and must build its ability to protect itself. She proposed the "Re arm Europe" special financing plan, with the goal of mobilizing 800 billion euros to enhance Europe's defense capabilities. The most prominent feature of this plan is to break through the current restrictions on member states' defense spending, open source on a large scale, and provide funding for enhancing European defense capabilities. The main measures include: loosening the fiscal policies of member countries and freeing up military spending space; Provide 150 billion euros in loans to various countries to promote joint procurement; Adjusting the budget structure of various countries and increasing investment in the defense industry; Introduce private capital and relax financial support for the military industry. Its goal is to enable Europe to have strong defense capabilities by 2030 and build a secure and resilient Europe. According to the requirements of the plan, the EU has also released the "White Paper on the Future of European Defense", urging member states to increase spending and improve procurement quality. The white paper has received unanimous agreement in principle from the leaders of member states. The EU has taken a crucial step in the transformation of its defense strategy by starting with the 'money bag'. The "Re arm Europe" plan has also become the largest defense investment plan in post Cold War Europe. Its large scale and wide scope to some extent reflect the EU's profound concerns about the current international security situation. Whether this measure can truly become a "watershed" depends on where the EU's defense autonomy "moat" will flow in the future. Building an independent defense requires building a "shield" for independent defense, and the EU still faces many difficulties and challenges. In fact, independent defense in Europe is not a new issue. As early as 1950, French Prime Minister Pr é vin proposed the "Pr é vin Plan" aimed at integrating the military forces of Western European countries and establishing a European defense community, but it was rejected by the French National Assembly. After the end of the Cold War, the call for European defense autonomy once again surged. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 established the Common Foreign and Security Policy, laying the foundation for EU defense cooperation. However, overall, the EU's measures to strengthen military capabilities and defense cooperation have had limited effectiveness over the years. It was not until the United States suddenly adjusted its strategy after Trump's second term that the European Union felt an unprecedented stimulus and realized that the era of relying solely on American protection was coming to an end. The Financial Times recently reported that major European countries are planning to gradually increase defense spending over the next five to ten years to replace the role of military forces stationed in Europe and the United States, and effectively respond to the turbulent situation after the United States may unilaterally withdraw from NATO. However, analysis suggests that it remains to be seen how much internal motivation EU member states can be stimulated by this passive adjustment from external pressure. In the eyes of European countries, the Ukrainian crisis has revealed the shortcomings of the European security architecture, and the core goal of reshaping this architecture is to make up for the long-standing "peace deficit" on the European continent. In order to ensure that "Europe has a place at the negotiating table," except for Hungary, the other 26 EU member states agreed at two summits to continue providing political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support to Ukraine, and decided to further increase sanctions against Russia. Former European Parliament member Jan Zaladil told a reporter from Guangming Daily, "The EU seems determined to play the opposite role with the United States on the issue of Ukraine. However, if the EU continues to provide weapons and financial assistance to Ukraine, it may prompt the United States to reduce its military, financial, and intelligence support to Ukraine." This is precisely the contradiction between the EU's rich ideals and the tangible reality. Analysis here suggests that Europe has long been overly reliant on US military protection, and once the US stops providing aid to Ukraine, it will be difficult for the EU to quickly fill the gap left by the US. Europe still has to admit that 'NATO remains the foundation of collective defense among member states', and a stronger and more capable EU will' complement NATO 'in the field of defense. Zharadil also pointed out that "increasing defense spending itself is indisputable and may even contribute to economic growth and technological development, but the key lies in where the funds come from. Cutting welfare, increasing taxes, or bearing new debts? If this leads to an economic crisis, the situation may become even more complicated." There are also problems with how to use these funds, and if it is only to purchase more American weapons, the dream of defense independence may become even more unattainable. Whether the consensus of member states can be put into practice and how to solve various contradictions encountered in practice are also the difficulties. Von der Leyen also admitted: "The real problem facing Europe is whether it is ready to take decisive action at the required speed and ambition according to the current situation." The root cause of Europe's tragedy After World War II, under the leadership and participation of the United States, Europe has established a strong defense system. The establishment of NATO in 1949 marked the formal establishment of the US European defense system, especially the collective defense mechanism stipulated in Article 5, which became the cornerstone of Western security policies during the Cold War. Now, the arbitrary adjustment and vague interpretation of the United States' commitment to European security have directly led to the deepening of the cracks in the transatlantic partnership. A good relationship requires careful cultivation over a long period of time, while breaking it often only happens in an instant. Currently, the transatlantic partnership is in a period of transition pains. The US Europe relationship is facing significant adjustments, with increasing competition and confrontation in the fields of economy, trade, and technology between the two sides. The Ukrainian crisis, an important issue with the nature of a "touchstone" for US European relations, is still unresolved and its future direction is uncertain. The ultimate outcome will also affect the form of future US European relations. The shift in US diplomacy has led European leaders to increasingly doubt the reliability of the security architecture built upon NATO. NATO is a product of the Cold War, but it not only did not end with the end of the Cold War, but also underwent five rounds of eastward expansion after the end of the Cold War. The European security architecture has not only failed to strengthen, but has also been repeatedly shaken. European countries that hope to ensure their own security by joining NATO have ultimately fallen into political and security dilemmas to varying degrees - the more they lean towards NATO, the worse their security environment becomes; The more insecure they feel, these countries can only continue to tightly bind themselves to NATO tanks. NATO's ambition has created a passive situation for Europe in terms of security issues, and NATO's eastward expansion is the root cause of the current security tragedy in Europe. How to reshape a sustainable security architecture on the European continent has become a major challenge for European leaders. This sense of urgency seems to have already been reflected in their schedule - just a few days before the EU meeting ended, French President Macron announced that Paris would hold a "volunteer alliance" summit to support Ukraine on the 27th, discussing military aid to Ukraine. Leaders of major European countries and Ukrainian President Zelensky would attend. Looking at the long term, whether Europe can break through its predicament and rebuild a lasting security architecture remains to be tested by time and practice. (New Society)