George Anjay
For eight decades, the bedrock of the transatlantic alliance has been a shared commitment to collective defense and a common set of values: the unwavering defense of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. This era, forged in the aftermath of World War II, was formally inaugurated in 1947 with President Harry Truman’s pivotal speech pledging American support to bolster a vulnerable Europe against the encroaching Soviet Union. This commitment spurred the creation of crucial international institutions like NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, and the United Nations, binding the United States to what became known as the "rules-based international order." This framework aimed to safeguard the democratic world from authoritarian adversaries through mutual obligations and shared responsibilities.
However, the recent US National Security Strategy (NSS), unveiled in December, signals a profound shift. For the current White House, this established era of American global leadership appears to be drawing to a close, with much of what the world has long taken for granted about America’s role now in question. The NSS pointedly refers to the "so-called ‘rules-based international order’," employing quotation marks that serve as a subtle, yet potent, act of delegitimization.
This seismic shift was foreshadowed by Vice President JD Vance in a stark address at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025. Vance directly challenged his European audience, asserting that the primary threat to the continent did not emanate from Russia but from within, specifically from forces suppressing free speech and political dissent, thereby undermining European democracy. His critique of the "leftist liberal network" was unequivocal. The French newspaper Le Monde characterized Vance’s speech as an "ideological war" declaration against Europe. The recent NSS effectively codifies these pronouncements, elevating them to the status of official doctrine.
Karin von Hippel, a former senior official in the US State Department and ex-Director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a prominent Whitehall think tank, observes, "Certainly, America is no longer the country that promoted the global values that have been in place since the end of the Second World War. It is shifting to a very different place." This raises a critical question: if the world is indeed moving away from the established international order, what is it moving towards, and what are the implications for Europe and the rest of the globe?
"International institutions, notably the United Nations, have been marked by dramatically anti-American sentiment and have not served our or any other particular purpose," states Victoria Coates, a vice-president at The Heritage Foundation, a influential right-wing think tank in Washington. Coates, who previously served as Deputy National Security Adviser to former President Donald Trump, argues that such changes to the international order are an inevitable consequence of a rapidly evolving world. "The other issue we face here is that when that so-called rules-based international order was established after the Second World War, 80 short years ago, China wasn’t a major concern. We just have a different world today."
The international order established in the post-World War II era was a direct product of a generation that had witnessed two devastating global conflicts born from Great Power geopolitics. While undeniably imperfect, that order was their legacy. The NSS, however, contends that American foreign policy deviated from its course over the intervening decades, attributing this to what it terms "American foreign policy elites." The document asserts, "They lashed American policy to a network of international institutions, some of which are driven by outright anti-Americanism and many by a transnationalism that explicitly seeks to dissolve individual state sovereignty." Consequently, the US intends to diminish the influence of supranational bodies, emphasizing, "The world’s fundamental political unit is and will remain the nation-state… We stand for the sovereign rights of nations, against the sovereignty-sapping incursions of the most intrusive transnational organizations." The strategy further elaborates on the "balance of power," stating, "The outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations." The Kremlin has welcomed this review, noting its alignment with Moscow’s own perspectives.
Field Marshal Lord Richards, former Chief of the UK’s Defence Staff, warns, "I think Trump, Xi, Putin and their more authoritarian acolytes are seeking to return us to an era of Great Power politics." However, Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London, suggests that the new Security Strategy may not represent as radical a departure from the past as it initially appears. "We need to be careful about the rules-based international order, which is a term that came into general use in the last decade or so," he cautions. "Look back and you find plenty of violations of the rules, Vietnam for example. So there’s a sort of rosy glow about the past at times and everyone should be careful about nostalgia for what was a complex past."
A significant early manifestation of this more assertive unilateralism is the US military operation in Caracas, Venezuela, which led to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. While some international law experts have questioned the legality of these actions, arguing they may have contravened international statutes on the use of force, the US maintains their legal justification. Robert Wilkie, a former Undersecretary of Defense in the first Trump administration, has stated, "Under American law it certainly was [legal]. Maduro – most of our European partners have not recognised his regime so he is an illegitimate figure. Because of that he is stripped of the normal protections that heads of state would have […] particularly when were are looking at constitutional provisions that exist in the United States, that would supersede anything the UN says."
The NSS asserts the United States’ right to be the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere, dictating alignment with Washington’s interests among its Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. This represents a robust reassertion of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, promising US supremacy in the region. Colombia, Panama, and Cuba are explicitly mentioned as being within President Trump’s strategic focus. Victoria Coates highlights the critical importance of the Panama Canal, stating, "The degree to which control of the canal is necessary to the United States cannot be overstated." With China emerging as Latin America’s largest trading partner and a significant infrastructure investor, the NSS aims to curb Chinese influence in America’s traditional sphere of influence. Coates recalls the handover of the canal to Panama in 1999, noting, "we were in the assumption that China was a reasonable actor… That turned out not to be true… So making sure that the United States retains a prime position over the canal is critical, and I think Panama is for the first time getting that message from the United States."
However, Sir Lawrence Freedman points out the limitations of US dominance: "The Strategy Review might say this is our hemisphere and we can do what we want, but there are still constraints. They may have extricated Maduro and his wife, but they’re still dealing with the old regime. They’re not running the country, despite what Trump says." Under the new strategy, the US will no longer pressure authoritarian regimes to improve their human rights records. The review invokes the 1776 Declaration of Independence, proclaiming, "All nations are entitled by ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God’ to a ‘separate and equal station’ with respect to one another." In the Middle East, the US declares its intention to abandon "the misguided experiment with hectoring these nations – especially the Gulf monarchies – into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government." The NSS states, "The key to successful relations with the Middle East is accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations as they are while working together on areas of common interest."
Paradoxically, this newfound respect for traditions and historic forms of government does not appear to extend to Europe’s democratic allies. While the document acknowledges a sentimental American attachment to the European continent and Britain, its core argument redefines what constitutes the Western world, advocating for a civilization based not on shared values but on the primacy of the sovereign nation-state.
The review is notably critical of Europe’s "current trajectory," raising doubts about the reliability of some European nations as future allies. It discusses "economic decline" but emphasizes the more "stark prospect of civilizational erasure." The strategy suggests, "It is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European," questioning their long-term viability as security partners. Karin von Hippel describes the document as "very nativist" and "very ideological," implying a concern about the diminishing dominance of the "Christian white male" in both the US and Europe.
Victoria Coates, however, frames the overarching challenge as a "civilisational" struggle. "Sovereignty is also a critical issue," she asserts. "Looking at the European Union project, especially after Brexit, I think a lot of countries are wondering if subverting the national interest to Brussels is a winning strategy. I do think that is one of the institutions that the NSS does call into question." This sentiment echoes the opposition of major American tech companies to EU regulatory efforts. Elon Musk notably advocated for the abolition of the European Union and the return of sovereignty to individual nation-states.
The review explicitly outlines how Europe can regain its "self-confidence," stating, "The growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism. Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete." A key policy recommendation is "cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations." The precise meaning of "cultivating resistance" remains open to interpretation. In Europe, some leaders already perceive the US as a less reliable ally, particularly in the face of growing Russian threats. Following Vice President Vance’s Munich speech, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared Europe’s need to "achieve independence" from America through a reshaped NATO.
Sir Lawrence Freedman acknowledges the long-term necessity of European self-reliance. "It’s not achievable in the short term," he states. "The Europeans have become very dependent upon the United States, and this was a matter of choice: it was cheaper and simpler. Though in practice it would be desirable to be able to act without the Americans… in practice it’s going to take years to disentangle ourselves. And it’ll be extremely expensive. So Europe has a difficulty: it can’t rely on the Americans, but it can’t operate easily without them." Lord Richards issues a stark warning about Europe’s precarious position: "The EU cannot be a Great Power, nor can any of its constituent nations. [So] the UK/EU must decide under whose sphere of influence they should shelter? The answer is they are likely to remain in the USA’s – and within a reshaped Nato."
Lord Richards also emphasizes the long-overdue need for increased defense spending. "European nations are going to have to spend much more on their own defence. This has long been coming but in the UK it is not yet translating into any fresh money. Indeed this year the armed forces are being required to save money rather than spend more." Sir Lawrence notes that the US has consistently urged Europe to boost defense spending, a message echoed by Presidents Obama and Biden. He points out that Trump’s success in securing a commitment from European allies to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP may ultimately benefit Europe by fostering greater operational independence from Washington. "Spending has gone up quite significantly," Sir Lawrence observes. "The Germans have been making quite impressive strides. So there is movement, not as fast as many would wish, but it’s happening." The review explicitly states the US commitment to assisting Europe: "We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness."
Ultimately, the NSS reveals not an ideological chasm between the US and Europe, but rather divisions that cut across both continents. Victor Mallet, a Paris-based journalist and author, argues that both sides of the Atlantic share common concerns, particularly regarding immigration and the economy. He identifies a significant "cultural gulf" between supporters of figures like Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen, and the "intellectual, metropolitan, educated liberal elite," characterizing the current political climate as a "popular revolt against the establishment." Mallet attributes this to inequality, noting that despite America’s wealth, many ordinary citizens struggle financially, a sentiment mirrored in Western Europe. The NSS, in its commitment to discarding practices like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, reflects the culture wars shaping American discourse, now extending to its foreign policy and, by extension, the security of the Western world. Notably absent from the review is any mention of Russia as a hostile power, despite its invasion of Ukraine. Within certain segments of Trump’s base, Vladimir Putin is viewed not as an adversary but as an ally in the defense of a white, Christian nationalist civilization – a civilization that values the very attributes admired in Donald Trump.
atisusanti
Nana Banana