Let’s be honest, Europe’s military and diplomatic apparatus is collapsing. The US is taking a huge step back from European defense and Ukraine, while the EU High Representative, Kaia Kallas, manages to undermine her credibility with unnecessarily inflammatory comments. Meanwhile, Europe wants to implement the plan to seize Russian assets with little strategic thought, underestimating the risks and potential consequences, without its leadership being able to clearly justify the ultimate goal.
The EU’s leading nomenclature is unfit for modern international reality, its improvisations have led “rules-based” Europe to the margins of the global geopolitical chessboard. The EU does not exude sovereignty, it is a museum of empire pretending that its exhibits are still alive.
On December 4, 2025, the White House released the new “United States National Security Strategy” (NSS). The 33-page document, which will be analyzed below, realistically diagnoses the complete discrediting of Europe in global geopolitical processes.
The National Security Strategy for 2025 marks a potentially profound change in US foreign policy under President Donald Trump’s second term compared to his first. This document explicitly states the doctrine of “America First” and rejects global hegemony and ideological crusades in favor of a pragmatic, transactional realism focused on protecting core national interests: homeland security, economic prosperity, and regional dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
It criticizes past U.S. invasions as failures that have weakened America and positions Trump’s approach as a “necessary corrective” to usher in a “new golden age.” The strategy prioritizes
- reindustrialization (with the goal of growing the U.S. economy from $30 trillion to $40 trillion by 2030),
- border security, and
- making deals to promote multilateralism or democracy.
- It embraces a multipolar world,
- downgrades China from a “threatened power” to an “economic competitor,” and
- calls for selective engagement with adversaries.
However, Donald Trump’s actions in the first eleven months of his presidency contradict the strategy outlined in writing. The question obviously remains whether Trump is serious enough to implement it. Here we go.
The strategy is blatantly partisan and credits Trump personally with brokering peace in eight conflicts (e.g., the India-Pakistan ceasefire, the return of hostages from Gaza, the Rwanda-Democratic Republic of Congo agreement), as well as obtaining a verbal commitment from NATO members at the 2025 Hague Summit to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP. It lists immigration as one of the greatest security threats, supports the use of lethal force against drug cartels when necessary, and rejects climate change and “Net Zero” measures as harmful to U.S. interests.
The document divides U.S. strategy into three pillars:
- Homeland Security,
- the Western Hemisphere, and
- economic renewal.
Secondary areas of focus include selective partnerships in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The following is an analysis of the major (rhetorical) changes in the strategy compared to previous strategies released during the respective Trump (2017) and Biden (2022) presidencies.
From Global Ranger to Regional Hegemon: Unlike Biden’s 2022 NSS (which emphasized alliances and competition between great powers) or Trump’s 2017 version (which characterized China/Russia as a threat), this document ends the US’s “eternal burdens” abroad. It prioritizes America over Eurasia and ranks Europe and the Middle East as less important theaters.
Ideological retreat: The promotion of democracy is explicitly abandoned, i.e. “we are fighting for peaceful trade relations without imposing democratic changes” (obviously the Venezuelans have a different view). Authoritarian regimes are not condemned and the EU is described as “anti-democratic”.
Conflicting relations with allies: Europe is strongly criticized for immigration, restrictions on freedom of expression and the risks of “disappearance of civilization” (e.g. demographic changes that will make nations “unrecognizable in 20 years”). The US promises to support patriotic European parties that oppose this policy.
China Policy: Recognizes failed policy so far and seeks “mutually beneficial” relations, but with deterrence (e.g. Taiwan is recognized as a “priority”). Does not seek complete disengagement, but limitations on technology/dependencies. In 2022, China was seen as a “pacing challenge” against which global alliances like AUKUS had to be forged. The “pacing challenge” from China meant a “long-term rivalry” in which one nation tries to “keep up” and try to outdo the other in different areas, but not through direct conflict. In the case of the Trump of 2025, pragmatic trade with China is preferred, as long as reciprocity is ensured.
Acceptance of multipolarity: Regional powers are called upon to manage their spheres of influence (e.g. Japan in East Asia, Arab-Israeli bloc in the Gulf), signaling the US reluctance to direct confrontation and involvement. Let me mention in passing: Who might Trump consider the regional power that will manage the sphere of influence in the Eastern Mediterranean?
As for NATO, the NSS represents a fundamental change in the US attitude towards the Alliance, with an emphasis on “burden shifting” rather than unconditional leadership within the Alliance. NATO is not portrayed as a community based on values, but as a transactional partnership in which US commitments, troops, funding and nuclear guarantees, are linked to the fulfillment of high new demands by European allies. This “America First” realignment prioritizes U.S. resources for the Indo-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere and leads to de-escalation in Europe to avoid “eternal burdens.” Key changes include ending NATO expansion, calling for defense spending of 5 percent of GDP by 2035, and restoring “strategic stability” with Russia through a ceasefire in Ukraine. While reaffirming Article 5 and its nuclear shield, the U.S. is signaling a possible partial withdrawal by 2027 if Europe does not follow suit, which could jeopardize the Alliance’s cohesion in the face of Europe’s demographic and ideological critique. This means that once Russia completes its defeat in Ukraine, NATO’s continued existence will be seriously questioned.
The new Strategy acknowledges NATO’s 5% commitment at the 2025 Hague Summit, but warns of “civilizational extinction” in Europe due to immigration and low birth rates, speculating that some members could achieve a “non-European majority” within a few decades, which could undermine their alignment with US interests.
Trump’s NSS marks a dramatic shift in US policy towards the war in Ukraine, effectively shifting responsibility for Ukraine’s survival to the Europeans, which has already sparked panicked protests in Europe. The document calls for a “rapid cessation of hostilities” through negotiations. The Biden administration’s unwavering support for Kiev is portrayed as a mistake. On the contrary, it is noted that strategic stability with Russia must be restored to prevent further escalation by the Europeans in Ukraine.
European politicians, also known as the “alliance of the willing”, after the publication of the NSS described Trump as “to the right of the far right” and warned of an erosion of the Alliance. European analysts praise the pragmatism of the new Strategy, but criticize its myopia and predict a “lonelier, weaker” US. China evaluates the sovereignty assurances positively, but remains suspicious of the economic pressure. In the US, Democratic lawmakers consider the Strategy “disastrous” for alliances such as NATO.
Overall, the Strategy signals an inward-looking U.S. shift, forcing NATO allies to finance their own security while threatening to disrupt partnerships with Europe. It positions America as a wealthy power in a hemispheric multipolar order, relying on business deals and industrial revitalization to maintain global influence without exaggeration. The message is unmistakable: The days when U.S. vassals could rely on the global gendarme are over.
Outcome
The 2025 National Security Strategy is more than just a strategy document; it is the programmatic foundation for Trump’s second term. It is making a radical break with the postwar order that the US has shaped since 1945, and instead relies on a return to its own hemisphere, tough border security, and concentrated deterrence (not necessarily military) against China. Europe, the Middle East, and large parts of Africa are deliberately classified as secondary spaces, in which risks are deliberately accepted in order to free up resources for the real vital interests of the US.
However, this strategy of “controlled withdrawal” and adaptation to global reality, manifested in a radical change in the balance of power to the detriment of the West and the US, will not prevent the relative decline of the United States. On the contrary, it could allow the US to integrate peacefully into the new multipolar order.
In any case, it is certain that this document marks the beginning of a new chapter in American foreign policy, which is likely to lead to significant upheavals, especially in Europe, where, unlike Washington, the signs of the times have not yet been recognized.
