Is Trump’s new Stark security strategy the end of the liberal world order? The Europeans will need convincing

US national security president Donald Trump’s Punald Trump National Security Strategy seems to be striking some important policies after 80 years of European collective defense, challenging the basis of continental relations with the country.

But whether or not the white house will be able to follow through on many of its most ambitious or transformative demands, many European topics may need more convincing.

In a veiled attack, Trump’s new policy portrays European governments as weak and ineffective. Migration has destroyed the self-confidence of the continent, it is surprising, accusing the European Union of contributing to the loss of national sovereignty, due to political freedom that has weakened the freedom and success of the province.

There is no mention of Russia being an opponent of – or a promoter of – a brutal, ongoing war against its neighbor Ukraine.

This document does not say that the US Core interest should be the defeat of Russia and the return of Ukrainian territories, but rather that they should seek to restore “strategic strength” with Russia.

In some places, Trump’s strategy reads more like a manifesto to promote Greater Emeria and northern Europe – especially in terms of the negative effects of immigration – than following the shared values ​​of a closely linked report.

Indeed, it seems that it comes under the ally-power dynamic by saying that it is Europe where the United States should press hard, “cultivating resistance” to its current trajectory, rather than Russia.

Seismic Replacement

While the document applies to the United States to NATO, it seems to have viewed America’s responsibility to protect Europe as conditional and limited – a seismic change.

“The days of the United States holding up all the orders of the world like an atlas are over,” he said. It shows the country is more of a mediator when it comes to resolving European conflicts with Russia, rather than returning to the continent.

To many European ears, that strategy seems to undermine the basic principle of the collective defense that NATO supports – that an attack on one country is an attack on all.

Many analysts believe that Nato’s article 5 guarantee is important in avoiding tensions between the members of the alliance and Russia since the end of the second world war.

But speaking to the BBC, Trump’s ex-Eu Ambam Sondand Gordon Sondand said that if European countries want to protect themselves from the ranks of the future by Russian President Vladimir Putin, the onus should be firmly on them.

“Hey [Putin] We will try again unless Europe finally breaks in and blocks the highway,” sonLand said.

That means spending on defense and doing things with workers, Sondland, “makes it clear that Europe is willing to enter into that kind of war with Putin, but not led by the United States.” This is where Trump goes here. “

Common themes

While the tone of the plan and the attacks on the European Union are stronger than in the past, the storm of this document is familiar.

US Vice-President jd Vance delivered the first salvo of this “America first” strategy in his famous speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year.

Nevertheless, after its release by the White House on Thursday night, this document was greeted with everything from deep concern to the depth of security in Europe and EU leaders.

“This is Donald Trump drawing a line in the sand – the end of the international cold war,” said Leslie Vinjamuri of the prestigious London-based Chatham house – speaking on a podcast.

There was also anger when Trump tried to put his finger on the scale of European elections by opposing centrist or pro-EU parties.

António Costa, the Portuguese President of the European Council, said the Trump administration has no right to tell people in Europe where to vote.

“The United States cannot take the place of European citizens in choosing which parties are right and which are wrong.”

‘Understood’ and ‘Understood’

But as the dust settles, most of that early milk response has softened.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the other strategies are “understandable” and “understandable,” while at the same time admitting that his country – a major defense ornament – must be “more independent from the US in terms of security.”

The Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tark, came out in favor of this strategy, but he still strikes a tone in favor of it.

“Dear American friends,” he wrote in X, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least it was the only way, it was the only proper strategy [for] our common security. ”

Since the beginning of Trump’s Second Term, America’s traditional Allies, including Canada, have been shocked, appalled and threatened to reset his priorities.

Europeans usually hold their tongues together, they tend to be flattering. The UK even threw in a surprise state visit to try and keep the unlikely US leader at bay.

And while two-thirds of NATO members – again, including Canada – responded to the American call for spending, EU members generally showed little interest in following some aspects of Trump’s agenda.

Apart from Britain, which voted to leave the union in 2016, no other member nation has expressed a desire to leave the political and economic bloc. Even in countries where the Euro-Occupancy is high, such as France and Italy, such feelings remain a min.

European nations can also keep their fingers on the problem of fear because the document leaves out so many direct threats against the United States that it is difficult to know how much is really short.

Little is said about hacking by China. There is no mention of North Korea’s Nuclear program and the danger it poses to US Allies Japan and South Korea. And there is no competition between the superpowers in terms of nuclear weapons – or in space.

Some analysts who spoke to CBC News said there is also likely to be strong opposition within Congress and even in different parts of the Trump administration to some key points in the document.

“It’s hard to see the United States providing any kind of real global power,” said Brandan Buck with the Cato Institute, a Liber-Mind-Might Tank in Washington, DC.

Buck says that while in the maga part of Trump’s base, there may be pressure to pull back as much as possible in the global catch-up, there is broad Republican support for NATO and joint defense, and the United States offers a strong backstop.

“As for the institutions of the conservative movement, I think there is a lot of reluctance to do anything big.”

All that can give European leaders show that they can continue in the way they started with Trump, hoping to wait for him to leave until the American elections or until 2028, when a new US President is wanted.

However, commentator Judy Dempley, writing about Carnegie’s push for peace in other countries, suggested that it could be the wrong way.

He wrote, wrote, wrote, he is good at many things.

“Europe lacks self-confidence. Yes, it has long relied on the United States as a guarantor of security. Yes, it has failed to listen to the complaints of the far right.”

But if after the results of Trump’s directives to Europe he is considering a dramatic reset, there is little indication yet.