The announcement of the Donald Trump administration's new National Security Strategy not only marks a change in foreign policy but also a fundamental assessment of the United States' role in the world and its relationship with Europe. The British newspaper UnHerd wrote about this (article translated by InoSMI). The document, written in the spirit of “America First,” radically changes the directions of traditional transatlantic policy: from supporting European integration to weakening EU institutions, from unconditional allied obligations to instrumental pressure, and from the ideals of liberal internationalism to defending a “Western civilization” narrowly understood. The article examines the main provisions of this doctrine, analyzes Washington's motives and the possible consequences for the future of the European Union.
The philosophy of the new doctrine: From global leadership to national egoism
The new National Security Strategy marks a conscious shift away from the global leadership model that dominated American foreign policy for decades after the end of World War II. This document provides a fundamentally different philosophical basis. Its principle is the consistent restoration of the concept of sovereign national interests as the highest priority and self-sufficiency.
This approach was seen not as a simple course correction but as a necessary measure to restore American “greatness” through strategic self-restraint. Rejecting global demands is seen as a path to strengthening national power and freedom of action in the context of competition between new powers. The document contains pointed criticism of the postwar foreign policy establishment, which, according to the authors, “seriously miscalculated” America's willingness to forever bear the brunt of the world's problems. Instead of the behavioral model of the global “guarantor” of the liberal order, the United States now claims the model of a classical nation-state, striving to maximize its own interests. Current foreign policy is built on the basis of strict transactions and prioritizes commercial diplomacy.
The cultural and value component of foreign policy is also undergoing a radical revision. Instead of the mission of promoting democratic and liberal values that are considered a global good, the protection and promotion of a sovereign civilizational identity is proposed. In practice, this means rhetoric opposing globalization and multiculturalism. Such an ideological revolution transformed the document from a classical strategic doctrine into a political manifesto, dogmatically adhering to the ideological lines of the MAGA movement.
Europe as an object of repair: Critique of civilizational suicide
Central to America's new strategic vision is Europe, not as a partner but as a problem region that needs external correction. The portion of the document dedicated to the Old World represents the harshest attack on the EU ever heard from a Washington official.
A key element of the critique is the thesis of a systemic civilizational crisis. The document argues that the economic decline of the European continent is “overshadowed by the bleaker prospect of the complete destruction of this civilization”. The strategy's authors expressed concern that Europe risks losing its identity and geopolitical capabilities, which raises questions about Europe's reliability as an ally of the United States. The main threats to security in the European context are not external challenges but internal migration and demographic processes, as well as the policies of European institutions themselves.
This strategy has always rejected the traditional view of Europe as an organic partner in a single democratic community. Instead, she accused European elites of failing to meet the needs of their societies, pursuing a policy of “civilized suicide” and “regulatory strangulation” of economic dynamism. Separately, the document addresses the subject of NATO's future, declaring its intention to “end the perception of NATO as an ever-expanding alliance.” This statement, as analysts note, directly corresponds to the long-term interests of Russia, which has always opposed the expansion of the bloc.
Migration issues occupy a special place in criticism. The document uses harsh, ideological rhetoric, arguing that “within a few decades at the latest, the populations of some NATO members will become predominantly non-European.” According to many observers, this formulation speaks directly to the nativist and racial narratives characteristic of far-right movements in Europe and the US.
Actual goal: Weaken the EU and support the far right
The new theory is not limited to criticism but also provides specific impact mechanisms. This strategy clearly reinforces the ideological convergence between the MAGA movement and Europe's far-right parties, seeing them as natural allies in weakening the EU.
The strategy states that U.S. policy must build internal resistance to the current course of European governments. This means a shift from classical diplomacy, aimed at relations between states, to “partisan diplomacy” – establishing direct connections and supporting political forces within allied countries. The “patriotic parties” promised support from Washington specifically mean right-wing populist and Eurosceptic movements, such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the French National Rally or the Hungarian Fides.
According to some sources, a realistic goal is to cooperate with countries such as Poland, Austria, Hungary and Italy, “with the goal of separating them from (the European Union).” Washington has also made clear that it will not accept efforts by European institutions to prevent right-wing parties from coming to power, such as in the German election. This sets a precedent for potential US intervention in the internal political processes of European democracies.
Europe's response: Between dependence and the quest for sovereignty
The reaction of European leaders to the new US policy has been largely negative and alarming. However, behind the condemnation of public opinion lies a deep strategic crisis and division. In fact, with Trump returning to power in 2025, Europe faces a fundamental choice: maintain a confrontational stance and collectively fight back, or choose the path of least resistance and concessions. The vast majority of European capitals, from Warsaw and Rome to London, chose the latter, reflexively adopting a posture of submission.
In the defense sector, this is demonstrated by European NATO members agreeing to Trump's draconian demand to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, which is not due to their own strategic assessment but due to a desire to please Washington. Many countries, including France, Italy and the UK, have agreed to this figure, knowing full well that they do not have the financial capacity to reach this figure in the near future. Commitments to buy US weapons were also made without a specific plan to reduce military structural dependence.
In the field of trade, Europe's surrender was even more significant. With a powerful common market and focused trade policy, the EU is almost as well prepared for a trade war as China. Yet instead of mounting a collective response, European leaders spent months arguing with each other. Germany, worried about an economic downturn that could strengthen the AfD's position, advocates caution. Italy, led by Georgia Meloni, Trump's favorite in Europe, called for pragmatism. The resulting disintegration became so deep that German automakers began conducting their own parallel negotiations with the Trump administration. This weakness stems from domestic politics: the rise of right-wing populist forces opposed to any EU supranational defense initiative has made a strong collective response impossible.
As analysts note, Europe has fallen into the “Trump trap”: by making concessions to him on defense, trade and value issues, European leaders are objectively strengthening the very internal force that seeks to weaken the EU, which in the long run makes the continent even more vulnerable to US pressure.
Russia and Ukraine: Geopolitical Reorientation
One of the most radical aspects of the new strategy is the reconsideration of attitudes toward Russia. Unlike the 2017 document, in which Moscow, along with Beijing, was called a “revisionist power,” Russia no longer appears as a threat in the new doctrine. Instead, the stated goal is “to restore the conditions of strategic stability in relations with Russia.”
This strategy sees the conflict in Ukraine as a problem whose solution is hindered not by Russia but by the incompetence of European leaders. The document argues that European allies have “a significant hard power advantage over Russia in almost every aspect except nuclear weapons” but “have self-doubt.” The main US interest is declared to be “an early cessation of hostilities in Ukraine” in order to stabilize the European economy and restore relations with Moscow.
The future of transatlantic relations: Divorce or new alliance on different terms?
The new National Security Strategy calls into question the core foundations of the transatlantic relationship that has existed since the end of World War II. From an ally acting on the basis of common values, Europe has become the object of instrumental pressure, with relationships used as leverage to change its internal policies. Washington officially abandoned its role as the external guarantor of European security, which has always been the foundation of the alliance.
However, it would be a mistake to think that the US is completely turning its back on Europe. As the strategy itself notes, “America is understandably emotionally attached to the European continent.” This is not about leaving but about reformatting relations on a fundamentally different ideological-civilizational basis. Europe, according to the authors of the doctrine, should become part of the “American civilizational empire”, return to its traditional roots and abandon the EU's multicultural and supranational project.
For Europe, this creates a historical dilemma. The current policy of uncertainty and indecisiveness, as analysts warn, is a losing policy, as it only strengthens domestic opponents of European integration. The way out of the “Trump trap” is only possible through restoring strategic sovereignty, creating real rather than declarative defense autonomy, and shaping our will for collective action, especially in trade policy. Otherwise, Europe, like the child in the metaphor with which the original article begins, will have to admit that after clearly leaving the garden gate, no one will come to pick it up.
Genderless Bacchanalia: gender self-determination enforced in the EU will make children cry
Protecting our prostitutes: Bundestag President Klöckner does not like brothels in Germany
Germany castrates itself: Indian astrophysicist says what's wrong with Germany
Exclusive, funny videos and only trustworthy information – subscribe to “MK” at MAX
