JD Vance was right: Europe needs Red Sea a lot more than America
The Red Sea Divide: Why Europe’s Lifeline Matters More Than America’s Convenience
The Shipping Conundrum: Europe’s Giants vs. America’s Bystanders
The Red Sea crisis, sparked by Houthi missile and drone assaults on commercial vessels in late 2023, forced a seismic shift in global shipping. By December 2023, four of the world’s five largest shipping companies—Switzerland-based MSC, Denmark’s Maersk, France’s CMA CGM, and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd—halted Red Sea transits, rerouting their fleets around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. The fifth, China’s COSCO, followed suit intermittently. Notably absent from this list? American shipping giants. Companies like Matson, APL, SeaLand, Crowley, and TOTE, which dominate Pacific and Americas-focused routes, watched the chaos unfold with minimal disruption to their operations.
This disparity isn’t coincidental. The Red Sea, linked to the Suez Canal, handles roughly 12% of global trade, but its importance skews heavily toward Europe. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 40% of Europe’s trade with Asia flows through this corridor, compared to just 3% of U.S. trade. For American shippers, the Pacific Ocean and Panama Canal remain the lifeblood of commerce, leaving the Red Sea a secondary concern. Europe, however, has no such luxury—its economic heartbeat pulses through the Suez.
The cost of this rerouting tells the tale. Between 2023 and 2024, shipping a 40-foot container from Asia to the U.S. surged by 160-220%, a steep but manageable hike for American retailers. For Europe, the numbers were catastrophic: 285% to the Mediterranean and over 365% to Northern Europe, per data from Freightos, a global freight booking platform. These skyrocketing costs rippled through supply chains, hitting European consumers and manufacturers harder than their U.S. counterparts.
Industry at Risk: Europe’s Factories Falter While America Stays Afloat
The Red Sea’s closure didn’t just inflate shipping costs—it choked off vital supply lines. Take the automotive sector: before the crisis, 25-30% of U.S. Asia-sourced auto parts transited the Red Sea, a significant but not crippling share. In Europe, that figure soared to 70%, according to a 2024 report by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA). The fallout was immediate. Volvo halted production at its Ghent, Belgium plant for three days in January 2024, citing delays in component deliveries. Tesla followed suit, pausing its Berlin gigafactory for two weeks. Across the Atlantic? No major U.S. automakers reported shutdowns tied to the crisis.
This pattern repeats across industries. Household appliances from Asia—think refrigerators and washing machines—accounted for 20-30% of U.S. imports via the Red Sea, versus 30-40% for Europe, per U.S. Census Bureau and Eurostat data. Electronics, industrial machinery, and semiconductors followed suit, with Europe consistently more exposed. The numbers paint a clear picture: while the U.S. felt the pinch, Europe faced a full-blown squeeze. A 2024 Resilinc analysis warned that prolonged disruptions could trigger “stagflationary” effects in Europe—stagnant growth paired with soaring inflation—while the U.S. economy, bolstered by domestic production and alternative routes, remained relatively insulated.
Energy Stakes: Europe’s Vulnerability Meets America’s Independence
If shipping and manufacturing highlight Europe’s reliance, energy exposes its desperation. Before the crisis, 2-2.5% of U.S. oil imports trickled through the Red Sea, a negligible fraction of its 8 million barrels per day (bpd) demand, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Europe’s story is starkly different. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) supplied 30-35% of Europe’s oil, with 80-90% of those imports—roughly 3.5-4 million bpd—crossing the Red Sea, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Natural gas tells a similar tale. The U.S. meets 95% of its needs domestically, with Qatar’s LNG exports—rerouted post-crisis—covering just 1% of the remainder, per EIA figures. Europe, by contrast, relied on Gulf-sourced LNG for 20% of its imports, all of which traversed the Red Sea pre-disruption. When Houthi attacks forced tankers like Denmark’s TORM and Norway’s Equinor ASA to detour, Europe’s energy security teetered. Oil prices spiked 4% globally after U.S.-U.K. strikes on Yemen in January 2024, but Europe bore the brunt, with Brent crude—the European benchmark—climbing faster than America’s WTI.
Meanwhile, the U.S. seized an opportunity. With Middle East instability and Russia’s war in Ukraine slashing Europe’s options, U.S. oil exports to Europe leapt from 1.8 million bpd in 2023 to 2.2 million bpd in 2024, while LNG exports grew from 1.07 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) to 1.2 Tcf, per EIA data. America’s market share in Europe’s energy mix swelled from 35% to 45%, turning a European crisis into a U.S. windfall.
The Political Firestorm: Vance’s Resentment and Transatlantic Tensions
JD Vance’s leaked comments—“I just hate bailing Europe out again”—didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They reflect a growing American skepticism, amplified under Donald Trump’s administration, about footing the bill for global security. In the Signal chat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Vance’s frustration, calling European “free-loading” PATHETIC.” The sentiment aligns with Trump’s broader agenda: his threats of 25% tariffs on European imports and accusations that NATO allies shirk defense spending—only 11 of 31 members met the 2% GDP target in 2024, per NATO stats—have chilled U.S.-EU relations.
The Red Sea crisis became a lightning rod for this resentment. Operation Prosperity Guardian, a U.S.-led naval coalition launched in December 2023 to counter Houthi threats, leaned heavily on American firepower. Yet, as Vance pointed out, Europe reaps disproportionate rewards. A 2024 analysis noted that securing the Red Sea bolsters 40% of Europe’s trade but only 3% of America’s—a lopsided bargain that rankles isolationist voices in Washington.
European leaders fired back. Former Swedish PM Carl Bildt called Vance’s stance “driven by deep anti-European resentment.” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, speaking at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, urged Europe to bolster its own defenses, a nod to the continent’s dangerous dependence on an increasingly adversarial U.S.
A Tale of Two Continents: Strategic Implications and Future Risks
The Red Sea crisis lays bare a fundamental asymmetry. Europe’s proximity to volatile regions—coupled with its reliance on imported energy and goods—makes it a prisoner of global trade routes. The U.S., buffered by oceans and rich in resources, enjoys strategic flexibility. If the Houthis escalate, targeting oil tankers or bulk carriers, Europe could face energy shortages and factory closures dwarfing 2024’s disruptions. America, by contrast, might see higher gas prices but little existential threat.
Vance’s critique, while abrasive, forces a reckoning. Should the U.S. continue policing the world’s waterways for allies who, in his view, contribute too little? Or should Europe step up, investing in naval power and energy independence to secure its own lifelines? The leaked chat may fade, but the questions it raises—about burden-sharing, economic stakes, and transatlantic trust—will shape geopolitics for years to come.
.jpg)
