The European ruling class is now isolated, deeply unpopular, and abandoned.
A National Security Strategy (NSS) is periodically released by U.S. Administrations (Trump issued one during his initial term). These documents typically present an idealized portrayal of an Administration’s foreign and security policies but carry limited practical weight since they omit entrenched U.S. political and economic interests, the consensus shaped by the deep security state’s curator class, and the agendas endorsed by powerful donors.
Still, the latest NSS takes a markedly distinct tone, applying an ‘America First’ lens to U.S. foreign policy. It rejects aspirations of global domination and ideological crusades, favoring a pragmatic, transactional approach centered on safeguarding essential national priorities—homeland security, economic growth, and regional supremacy within the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. intends to “no longer prop up the entire world order like ‘Atlas’ and expects Europe to shoulder more of its own defence burdens”.
The document critiques earlier U.S. efforts to maintain global primacy as a “failure” that ultimately weakened America and portrays Trump’s policies as a “necessary correction” to that previous approach, thereby recognizing a shift toward a multipolar world.
Two principal foreign policy goals receive subtle rather than revolutionary revision:
First, China is downgraded from being labeled the ‘primary threat’ to a ‘pacing threat’ framed primarily as an economic rival (with Taiwan viewed as a deterrent tool).
Regarding Russia, the NSS states,
“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state”.
The text avoids phrases like ‘strategic peace’ with Russia, instead opting for ‘cessation of hostilities’—indicating a ceasefire rather than a comprehensive resolution. This language possibly suggests Trump’s intention is limited to a truce, not a full settlement addressing Russia’s security concerns.
European relations with Russia are characterized as “deeply attenuated”:
“The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis”.
In essence, responsibility for Ukraine is now clearly shifted onto Europe. More broadly, allied nations are expected to bear the financial burden while the U.S. focuses on domestic rebuilding.
A major transformation in the NSS is America’s redefinition as a hemispheric power rather than a global hegemon:
“We want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine”.
Concerning military strategy, the document mentions a “readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere”.
One particularly significant practical change is the mention of “ending NATO as an ever-expanding alliance” and the harsh criticism directed at Europe:
The NSS sharply condemns Europe for economic stagnation, demographic decline, erosion of sovereignty to EU institutions, and what it calls “civilizational erasure”:
“We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation”.
The strategy portrays the EU’s liberal and technocratic elites, along with many Member States, as threats not only to Europe’s future and stability but also to U.S. interests. It makes clear that backing the Patriotic Right in Europe and fostering opposition to Europe’s current direction aligns with American priorities.
Population replacement through immigration is identified as the greatest long-term danger to both Europe and U.S. interests, openly questioning whether certain European countries will continue to be dependable allies given current trends.
The transatlantic bond remains, but it no longer dominates U.S. foreign policy.
The European elite’s alarm:
European officials, including former Swedish PM Carl Bildt, criticized the NSS’s description of Europe as being “to the Right of the extreme Right”. Meanwhile, U.S. Democrats like Rep. Jason Crow declared the strategy “catastrophic” for alliances such as NATO.
To grasp the frantic reaction from Europe, some background is necessary:
Liberal woke identity politics tolerated no dissent or divergent perspectives.
Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin, long regarded as the Washington Post‘Republican columnist’ for balance, wrote in September 2022, rejecting the concept of debating multiple sides because any opposing argument would lend conservatives a false sense of rationality:
“We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them – because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again … The Kabuki dance in which Trump, his defenders and his supporters are treated as rational (clever even!) comes from a media establishment that refuses to discard … this false equivalence”.
That same month, President Biden echoed a similar sentiment. Speaking beneath ominous red and black lighting at the historic Independence Hall, he warned of threats not just abroad but within the nation—from “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans”, whom he accused of embodying an extremism that “threatens the very foundations of our republic”.
This apocalyptic rhetoric infiltrated Brussels, captivating and reshaping the EU leadership. This is unsurprising, as the EU’s regulation-driven internal market aimed to supplant political debate with Tech-Managerialism. The Euro-élites desperately sought a new Value System to fill their identity void. Their solution came easily:
“Appetites of the autocrat cannot be appeased. They must be opposed. Autocrats only understand one word: ‘No.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’ (Applause.) ‘No, you will not take my country.’ ‘No, you will not take my freedom.’ ‘No, you will not take my future … A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never be able to ease [erase] the people’s love of liberty. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free. And Ukraine — Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never”. (Applause)
“Stand with us. We will stand with you. Let us move forward … with an abiding commitment to be allies not of darkness, but of light. Not of oppression, but of liberation. Not of captivity, but, yes, of freedom”.
Biden’s Warsaw speech later repeated this framing, accompanied by theatrical lighting and a dramatic setting reminiscent of his Liberty Hall address. There, he portrayed the domestic MAGA opposition as a grave internal security risk while casting Russia as an external counterpart—framing the ongoing struggle as a relentless battle between light and darkness that must be decisively won.
Again, Biden sought to reinforce America’s deep-rooted missionary spirit as a ‘City on the Hill,’ a shining example fighting a perpetual cosmic war against Russian ‘evil’, aiming to bind the American governing class to this metaphysical crusade.
David Brooks, author of Bobos in Paradise and a liberal New York Times columnist, admitted initially embracing this liberal ideology but later conceded it was a grave misjudgment: “Whatever you want to call them [the liberals] have coalesced into an insular, intermarrying Brahmin élite that dominates culture, media, education, and tech”.
He acknowledged: “I didn’t anticipate how aggressively … we would seek to impose élite values through speech and thought codes. I underestimated the way the creative class would successfully raise barriers around itself to protect its economic privilege … And I underestimated our intolerance of ideological diversity”.
In simple terms, this ideological code provided the Euro-élites with their new cult of absolute purity and impeccable virtue, filling the EU’s evident identity vacuum. This paved the way for a vanguard whose missionary zeal targets ‘the Other’.
Von der Leyen’s ‘State of the Union’ address to the European Parliament in 2022 closely mirrored Biden’s words:
“We should not lose sight of the way foreign autocrats are targeting our own countries. Foreign entities are funding institutes that undermine our values. Their disinformation is spreading from the internet to the halls of our universities … These lies are toxic for our democracies. Think about this: We introduced legislation to screen foreign direct investment for security concerns. If we do that for our economy, shouldn’t we do the same for ‘our values’? We need to better shield ourselves from malign interference … We will not allow any autocracy’s Trojan horses to attack ‘our democracies’ from within”.
Despite the fusion of American ‘Bobos’ and EU liberal warriors, many worldwide were startled by how swiftly Brussels’ leadership adopted Biden’s narrative advocating a prolonged conflict against Russia—a compliance that seemed starkly opposed to Europe’s economic and social interests.
Put simply, this war appears to be a deliberate choice anchored in radical Manicheanism.
Originally, NATO’s creation in 1949 faced resistance from the European Left because of its anti-communist nature. Yet, NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 altered perceptions for some leftists—including social democrats and liberals—who began to see the alliance as a vehicle to advance and consolidate “our democracy” (in Biden’s phrasing).
The alignment of EU leadership with NATO and Biden’s agenda was complete. Germany’s Foreign Minister in 2022, Annalena Baerbock—equally determined to “ruin Russia” as Biden—outlined in a New York speech a vision of U.S.-German dominance. She recalled that in 1989, President George Bush offered Germany a “partnership in leadership,” but reunification occupied Germany then. Now, she claimed, “the moment has come when we have to create it: A joint partnership in leadership”.
Regarding this partnership in military terms, she stated:
“In Germany, we have abandoned the long-held German belief in ‘change through trade’ … our goal is to further strengthen the European pillar of NATO… and the EU must become a Union capable of dealing with the United States on an equal footing: in a leadership partnership”.
Therefore, Europe’s elite alarm over the NSS’s scathing critique is not merely about America turning its back on a European ruling class that once eagerly sought U.S. approval. The NSS condemns their democratic subversion and even questions their future reliability as allies.
NATO is now acknowledged as “not forever”.
The European ruling class currently stands isolated, disfavored, and abandoned.
About the Author
