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

U.S. President Donald Trump’s new national security strategy appears to blow up some of the key principles behind 80 years of European collective defence, challenging the foundation of the continent’s relationship with the country.

But on whether the White House will — or even can — follow through on many of its more radical or transformative demands, many European capitals will likely need more convincing.

In a blistering attack, Trump’s new policy portrays Europe’s governments as weak and ineffective. Migration has destroyed the continent’s self-confidence, it claims, accusing the European Union of contributing to a loss of national sovereignty, weakened political freedoms and the diminished effectiveness of individual nation states.

Not a word is mentioned of Russia being an adversary — or the instigator of a horrific, ongoing war against its neighbour Ukraine. 

The document does not say the U.S. core interest should be the defeat of Russia and the return of Ukraine’s territories, but rather that it should seek to restore “strategic stability" with Russia.

In other places, Trump’s strategy reads more as a manifesto for fostering the Make America Great Again movement in Europe and advancing policies of far-right parties such as Germany’s AfD — particularly with regards to the negative impacts of immigration — than it does a traditional blueprint for preserving the shared values of deeply connected allies.  

Indeed, it appears to invert the ally-adversary dynamic by saying it's Europe where the United States should be pushing hard, “cultivating resistance” to its current trajectory, rather than against Russia.

While the document commits the United States to NATO, it appears to view American responsibility for defending Europe as conditional and limited — a seismic change. 

“The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over,” it states. It portrays the country as more of a mediator when it comes in resolving European conflicts with Russia, rather than the continent's most steadfast backer.

To many European ears, the strategy appears to weaken the core principle of collective defence that underpins NATO — that an attack on one country amounts to attack on all of them. 

Many analysts believe NATO’s Article 5 guarantee has been essential in avoiding a confrontation between members of the alliance and Russia since the end of the Second World War. 

But speaking to the BBC, Trump’s former EU ambassador Gordon Sondland said if European countries want to protect themselves from future aggressions by Russian President Vladimir Putin, the onus should be firmly on them. 

“He [Putin] will try again unless Europe finally steps up and creates a major roadblock for him," said Sondland.

That means defence spending and committing materials and personnel, Sondland said, "to make it clear that Europe is willing to get into that kind of a war with Putin, backed by the United States, but not led by the United States. That's where Trump is going here."