The way Washington is putting Europe through the wringer, so to speak, by presidential decree, confirms the end of transatlantic reliability. The fact that the USA no longer wants to be an ally has been announced since Obama. How can the EU react?
Under Trump, the North Atlantic Treaty is facing a turning point
Foto: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images
„Turning point” was the word of the year 2022. It signifies the end of one age and the beginning of a new one. Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) recognized the first “turning point” after the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. This was indeed a tipping point that shook the European peace order. However, it didn’t come out of nowhere. It was preceded by NATO’s expansion policy, which experienced realists such as Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer had strongly warned against.
After almost four years of war and several so far fruitless US peace plans, at least a start has been made to end the fighting. If it is possible to stabilize this process – which does not appear to be the case so far given Russian and European irreconcilability – sooner or later the question will arise as to what the new European peace order should look like. Europe has not yet had an answer to this, even though it is directly affected. It is disorientated and is characterized by a lack of ideas, a lack of initiative and irrelevance.
The American withdrawal was already evident with Barack Obama
The fate of these shortcomings is reinforced by a second turning point, the drama of which is in no way inferior to the first: the end of the transatlantic alliance as we knew it and the USA’s turn to a policy of exclusive zones of influence with a clear claim to dominance in the “Western Hemisphere”. This development also only appears to come suddenly. There have been signs of retreat since Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy in 2009.
However, the realignment of US foreign and security policy envisaged by the Trump administration, as now written into the new National Security Strategy, goes much further. It amounts to another tipping point that will have radical effects on Germany and Europe.
On the one hand, it presents itself as a peace policy that is based on a policy of strength, is strictly aimed at safeguarding national self-interests, rejects ideological commitments and respects the sovereignty of other states. On the other hand, it presumes to enforce its nationalist and culturally combative worldview in Europe and the “democratic world”.
The approach of striving for “targeted partnerships” that combine fair burden sharing and economic incentives such as tariffs, technology transfer or the supply of defense equipment and that hold out the prospect of states taking more responsibility for their regional security is likely to have considerable potential for division in Europe. Washington wants to rely on regional champions who will take on leadership roles in pursuing their own and US interests.
Washington sees itself in the role of a mediator, not an ally
It still remains unclear who exactly we want to “recruit” for this, but there is no doubt that great hopes are being placed on patriotic parties and movements. Proximity to the ideas of the AfD, for example, becomes clear in the analysis that Europe is on the decline and runs the risk of being culturally wiped out. The same applies to the assessment of the EU, which allegedly represents a danger to Europe because it undermines political freedom and sovereignty as well as national sovereignty and self-confidence.
This dilemma is most evident in the relationship with Russia. Although Europe has more hard power, the US must ensure that strategic stability is restored on the Eurasian landmass and the risk of war is mitigated. Washington sees itself in the role of a mediator and not an ally. The leaked request to take over conventional defense within NATO itself as early as 2027 (with Germany as the new SACEUR/Supreme Allied Commander Europe) demonstrates the seriousness of the second turning point.
Much of what is written down in the security strategy has been in the offing for a long time. From the questioning of NATO and the promise of support to the massive pressure to drastically increase defense spending, to the culture war tones of Vice President JD Vance and the imposition of high tariffs. Now Washington is presenting Europe to the EU with the alternative of either living in an “American-led world of sovereign states” or in one dominated by China. Europe should see it as a threat when the security strategy emphasizes that the USA cannot afford to write off Europe because it would undermine its own goals.
Europe’s answer to the US’s new Monroe Doctrine?
So must “the Europeans” follow suit? That would not only mean giving up universal values, but also giving up a central pillar of German peace, security and economic policy with the EU. Germany would be forced into the role of a deputy sheriff and sinister nationalist ideologies would be strengthened. Right-wing nationalist and conservative circles in Germany and beyond may welcome this. This is precisely where the danger lies, especially when they are actively supported by Washington.
The other option would be to just let things run their course. But that would be like an ostrich policy that would be deeply irresponsible. The only option left is to close the European ranks and counter this new version of the American Monroe Doctrine with European enlightenment and self-assertion. To do this, however, the federal government would have to give up the dogma of opposing a collective European financial policy and go its own new way in its Russia policy.
r had warned urgently. After almost four years of war and several so far fruitless US peace plans, at least a start has been made to end the fighting. If it is possible to stabilize this process – which does not appear to be the case so far given Russian and European irreconcilability – sooner or later the question will arise as to what the new European peace order should look like. Europe has not yet had an answer to this, even though it is directly affected. It is disorientated and is characterized by a lack of ideas, a lack of initiative and irrelevance. The American withdrawal was already indicated with Barack Obama. The fate of these deficiencies is reinforced by a second turning point, the drama of which is in no way inferior to the first: the end of the transatlantic alliance as we knew it and the USA’s turn to a policy of exclusive zones of influence with a clear claim to dominance in the “Western Hemisphere”. This development also only appears to come suddenly. There have been signs of retreat since Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy of 2009. However, the realignment of US foreign and security policy envisaged by the Trump administration, as now written into the new National Security Strategy, goes much further. It amounts to another tipping point that will have radical effects on Germany and Europe. On the one hand, it presents itself as a peace policy that is based on a policy of strength, is strictly aimed at safeguarding national self-interests, rejects ideological commitments and respects the sovereignty of other states. On the other hand, it presumes to enforce its nationalist and culturally combative worldview in Europe and the “democratic world”. The approach of striving for “targeted partnerships” that combine fair burden sharing and economic incentives such as tariffs, technology transfer or the supply of defense equipment and that hold out the prospect of states taking more responsibility for their regional security is likely to have considerable potential for division in Europe. Washington wants to rely on regional champions who will take on leadership roles in pursuing their own and US interests. Washington sees itself in the role of a mediator, not an ally. It still remains unclear who exactly it wants to “recruit” for this, but there is no doubt that it has great hopes for patriotic parties and movements. Proximity to the ideas of the AfD, for example, becomes clear in the analysis that Europe is on the decline and runs the risk of being culturally wiped out. The same applies to the assessment of the EU, which allegedly represents a danger to Europe because it undermines political freedom and sovereignty as well as national sovereignty and self-confidence. This dilemma is most evident in the relationship with Russia. Although Europe has more hard power, the US must ensure that strategic stability is restored on the Eurasian landmass and the risk of war is mitigated. Washington sees itself in the role of a mediator and not an ally. The leaked request to take over conventional defense within NATO itself as early as 2027 (with Germany as the new SACEUR/Supreme Allied Commander Europe) demonstrates the seriousness of the second turning point. Much of what is written down in the security strategy has been announced for a long time. From the questioning of NATO and the promise of support to the massive pressure to drastically increase defense spending, to the culture war tones of Vice President JD Vance and the imposition of high tariffs. Now Washington is presenting Europe to the EU with the alternative of either living in an “American-led world of sovereign states” or in one dominated by China. Europe should see it as a threat when the security strategy emphasizes that the USA cannot afford to write off Europe because it would undermine its own goals. Europe’s answer to the USA’s new Monroe Doctrine? So must “the Europeans” follow suit? That would not only mean giving up universal values, but also giving up a central pillar of German peace, security and economic policy with the EU. Germany would be forced into the role of a deputy sheriff and sinister nationalist ideologies would be strengthened. Right-wing nationalist and conservative circles in Germany and beyond may welcome this. This is precisely where the danger lies, especially when they are actively supported by Washington. The other option would be to just let things run their course. But that would be like an ostrich policy that would be deeply irresponsible. The only option left is to close the European ranks and counter this new version of the American Monroe Doctrine with European enlightenment and self-assertion. To do this, however, the federal government would have to give up the dogma of opposing a collective European financial policy and go its own new way in its Russia policy.
