Analysis after Trump's new doctrine How should Europe respond?

United States Claims in Their New National Security Strategy that Europe is located in the trajectory of “the destruction of civilisation”, and attributed to European integration and the European Union's “that undermine political freedom and sovereignty” some of the continent's deepest problems.

It says: Georg Riekeles

We should all have understood that behind Washington's 28 - point humiliating plan for Ukraine. The Shocking Speech of JD Vance in MunichIn February, where he suggested that European democracies are not worth protecting was an early warning signal. But the new words still punch. The security document is the clearest signal so far than the brutal and transactional one intends to be Washington's commitment to the continent. It marks another phase in Trump's attempt to reform Europe according to its ideological image, while at the same time abandoning it militarily. According to the document, American politics should enable Europe “to assume the primary responsibility for its defence”.

The withdrawal of American troops from Europe has been a particularly persistent request of the MAGA lobby. Image like Steve Bannon openly argues for “hemispheric protection”, that is, the protection of Americas instead of Europe. In his podcast “War Room”, Bannon clearly said: “We are a nation of the Pacific... our center, America's strategic heart, actually the Pacific. ”

One of the clearest articulations of American strategic attractions has come from a key figure of defence thought in Trump era: Elbridge Colby, lead defence and foreign policy adviser at the Pentagon. In a 2023 political document, “Colby and his coauthors presented the logic of reducing American engagement in Europe and concentration of resources elsewhere.

The initial promise is clear. As one of the contributors put it, the United States does not have and does not plan to develop the ability to fight and win major wars in Europe and Asia simultaneously.” According to them, China is the crucial area, not Europe, and American asset attention should be displaced according to interest.

Washington has signalled a version of this collapse for more than a decade. However, European governments have found it very difficult to overturn the idea that the U.S. can actually overshadow the security of the old continent. The war in Ukraine has reinforced this tension: from the European perspective, an American attraction, or an unevenly imposed peace would produce chaos in Ukraine and destabilisation in Europe.

For Colby, this is not enough argument against leaving the US from Europe. As he writes: “Destability or even chaos, in itself, is not enough... to judge a failed depression attempt.” What matters, according to him, is whether the US finds ways to protect itself from the chaos that follows.

The new US security strategy confirms that Washington is focusing more and more on “Western Hemisphere”. The administration plans to put in second place external issues and missions, including, to some extent, even China, to focus on its own internal security and its immediate neighbourhood. The largest American marine investment in the Caribbean in over 30 years underscores this change.

There is reason to believe that the US will not abandon Europe entirely. Protecting about $4 trillion of American investments on the continent remains a key interest. However, the movement is undeniable, Washington is withdrawing. The urgent question for Europe is: Are we ready to face the consequences?

Because it is clear that while the US withdraws militarily, it will tighten other leverages more firmly: financial power, diplomatic pressure, export controls, trade measures and secondary sanctions. These instruments will be used more and more to point Europe towards the political course the US wants. Soft implementation, or the complete removal of digital and green rules, will be required by the EU, as did last month US Trade Secretary Howard Lutnick. And all of this is happening as Europe's security umbrella becomes ever weaker. The result is a dangerous asymmetry - less protection and more pressure.

Europe risks returning to the collateral damage of a long-term US-Chinese confrontation, while no longer enjoying the iron guarantees of the past that eased these shocks. This is a bad place to lose.

If Europe wants to switch from safeguard positions to a strategic agency, it should continue to increase investment in defence and make absolutely clear that pressure efforts by Washington or Beijing will face severe counteraction. Only thus can Europe avoid the pressures of a retired master and a unbelieving rival.

Submission to US pressure does not work, as Ursula von der Leenen indicated last summer's shameful, unilateral trade agreement. This EU humiliation was supposed to provide continued US support to Ukraine, however, the opposite is happening. The American Impulsion to leave Europe is stronger than any unilateral trade concession that can be offered.

Europe should not repeat that mistake. The next time Washington shakes its grip, EU must be ready to react, starting with rejecting trade deal and activating “insert anti-submission” available in the first sign of pressure. Only a strong answer will be counted in Washington.

If the US is to decide to put Europe's security in second place, it should have a cost: its influence in the region must fade. Without historical security guarantees, American intervention and pressure create an unacceptable situation for the continent.

Georg Riekeles is associate director and Varg Folkman political analyst at the European Policy Centre, adapted from The Guardian,