Earlier this week (December 8), I commented on the release of the new US National Security Strategy for the Slovenian Press Agency (STA). As this document will have long-term consequences for Europe and the future of transatlantic relations, I am providing an expanded version of that assessment here—offering more context and sharper emphasis than the news agency format allows.
The new strategy is significant primarily because it confirms in writing the structural changes and trends that have been present in transatlantic relations for some time: the US is politically and strategically withdrawing from Europe, while Europe will need to assume responsibility for its own security, resilience, and international positioning as a sovereign global actor much faster. Put directly, the document is the final wake-up call for Europe that, going forward, it must rely strategically on itself.
The EU as a Target: Geoeconomics Over Alliance
If we read the strategy without sugarcoating, the message is clear: Washington no longer views Europe, particularly the European Union, as a natural partner, but as an entity impeding American interests. This is not necessarily in the traditional security sense, but primarily in a geoeconomic one. In the document, the EU is portrayed as a supranational structure that is allegedly “hostile” and poses an excessive threat to American economic interests and the operational freedom of American companies.
One of the most telling elements is the accusation that the EU or European countries need to “open their markets.” This is primarily a political argument: European markets are not closed; they are regulated. In the EU, common rules of the game apply—ranging from competition and state aid to digital markets, privacy, and consumer protection—and these rules apply to all companies, regardless of their country of origin.
This lies at the very heart of the conflict. A segment of current American politics, alongside influential players in the technology sector, desires an environment where business conditions are tailored more to American interests and business models. European regulation restricts this logic; therefore, the EU is presented as an obstacle that needs to be dismantled to supposedly “liberate nation-states.”
Political Undertone: Delegitimization of the EU and “MAGA Europe”
The strategy targets more than just the economy. In the section concerning the EU (which is undoubtedly at the core of the document), a political-ideological framework also emerges: Europe is accused of stifling free speech and suppressing political opposition, while migration and low birth rates are claimed to be leading to “civilizational extinction.” Such rhetoric is not accidental. It represents an attempt to delegitimize the European project and offers implicit support for a more fragmented Europe modeled after the MAGA movement—more nationalistic, more divided, and consequently more manageable through bilateral agreements.
In this section, a broader ambition can also be discerned: a weaker EU means more maneuvering room for external actors who have no interest in European unity. When the EU is portrayed as a problem rather than a solution, the practical message is that dismantling European cohesion is a legitimate political target.
“Moral Betrayal” and the Expanded List of the Betrayed
Less than a week before this document was released, I attended an international conference in Vienna organized by the ERSTE Foundation, where Francis Fukuyama also spoke. Regarding Trump’s approach to Ukraine—the pressure to surrender or capitulate, and the de facto internalization of the Kremlin’s interests and arguments—he stated that, in his view, this constitutes the “greatest moral betrayal by the US in his lifetime.”
To this, we could easily add: if Ukraine is the first and most obvious victim of this approach, this strategy has definitively expanded the list of those betrayed by the US—and on a massive scale, to include the entire EU. Not necessarily in the sense of an immediate severance of the alliance, but in the sense of the fundamental premise that European stability and integration are a US strategic interest. The document indicates the exact opposite: the EU is increasingly being treated as a (hostile) competitor.
Approach to Russia: Pragmatism and the Calculus of (Economic) Interests
Regarding Russia, the new US strategy establishes a fairly simple, pragmatic framework: Russia is not presented as an ally, but neither is it necessarily the central enemy. The emphasis is on “strategic balance,” which could imply a reduction in direct confrontation and more room for deals. For Europe, the problem is that such a framework reduces the predictability of American security commitments and increases the pressure on the EU to independently formulate deterrence, support for Ukraine, and a long-term policy toward Russia. Economic interests are at the forefront—not necessarily those of the US as a whole, but primarily those of individuals within or close to the US administration, who expect billions in profits from the lifting of sanctions and privileged access to the Russian market.
What Must Europe Do?
Europe is ill-prepared for this turning point. There is no longer room for maneuvering. The key response is the acceleration of integration and a serious discussion on how to reform the EU so that it is capable of responding to challenges faster and more independently—not only because of the American withdrawal but also due to broader competition in the military and geoeconomic sense.
There is not much entirely new in the new strategy; we have already heard most of these points from members of the US administration over the past year, and they should no longer surprise us. The difference is that now it is all written down: in black and white. And when transatlantic changes are translated into an official strategy, it ceases to be “merely” political rhetoric or tactics; it becomes a political framework.
Sharing is caring!
New US National Security Strategy: The Final Wake-Up Call for Europe (comment for the STA – Slovene Press Agency)
Earlier this week (December 8), I commented on the release of the new US National Security Strategy for the Slovenian Press Agency (STA). As this document will have long-term consequences for Europe and the future of transatlantic relations, I am providing an expanded version of that assessment here—offering more context and sharper emphasis than the news agency format allows.
The new strategy is significant primarily because it confirms in writing the structural changes and trends that have been present in transatlantic relations for some time: the US is politically and strategically withdrawing from Europe, while Europe will need to assume responsibility for its own security, resilience, and international positioning as a sovereign global actor much faster. Put directly, the document is the final wake-up call for Europe that, going forward, it must rely strategically on itself.
The EU as a Target: Geoeconomics Over Alliance
If we read the strategy without sugarcoating, the message is clear: Washington no longer views Europe, particularly the European Union, as a natural partner, but as an entity impeding American interests. This is not necessarily in the traditional security sense, but primarily in a geoeconomic one. In the document, the EU is portrayed as a supranational structure that is allegedly “hostile” and poses an excessive threat to American economic interests and the operational freedom of American companies.
One of the most telling elements is the accusation that the EU or European countries need to “open their markets.” This is primarily a political argument: European markets are not closed; they are regulated. In the EU, common rules of the game apply—ranging from competition and state aid to digital markets, privacy, and consumer protection—and these rules apply to all companies, regardless of their country of origin.
This lies at the very heart of the conflict. A segment of current American politics, alongside influential players in the technology sector, desires an environment where business conditions are tailored more to American interests and business models. European regulation restricts this logic; therefore, the EU is presented as an obstacle that needs to be dismantled to supposedly “liberate nation-states.”
Political Undertone: Delegitimization of the EU and “MAGA Europe”
The strategy targets more than just the economy. In the section concerning the EU (which is undoubtedly at the core of the document), a political-ideological framework also emerges: Europe is accused of stifling free speech and suppressing political opposition, while migration and low birth rates are claimed to be leading to “civilizational extinction.” Such rhetoric is not accidental. It represents an attempt to delegitimize the European project and offers implicit support for a more fragmented Europe modeled after the MAGA movement—more nationalistic, more divided, and consequently more manageable through bilateral agreements.
In this section, a broader ambition can also be discerned: a weaker EU means more maneuvering room for external actors who have no interest in European unity. When the EU is portrayed as a problem rather than a solution, the practical message is that dismantling European cohesion is a legitimate political target.
“Moral Betrayal” and the Expanded List of the Betrayed
Less than a week before this document was released, I attended an international conference in Vienna organized by the ERSTE Foundation, where Francis Fukuyama also spoke. Regarding Trump’s approach to Ukraine—the pressure to surrender or capitulate, and the de facto internalization of the Kremlin’s interests and arguments—he stated that, in his view, this constitutes the “greatest moral betrayal by the US in his lifetime.”
To this, we could easily add: if Ukraine is the first and most obvious victim of this approach, this strategy has definitively expanded the list of those betrayed by the US—and on a massive scale, to include the entire EU. Not necessarily in the sense of an immediate severance of the alliance, but in the sense of the fundamental premise that European stability and integration are a US strategic interest. The document indicates the exact opposite: the EU is increasingly being treated as a (hostile) competitor.
Approach to Russia: Pragmatism and the Calculus of (Economic) Interests
Regarding Russia, the new US strategy establishes a fairly simple, pragmatic framework: Russia is not presented as an ally, but neither is it necessarily the central enemy. The emphasis is on “strategic balance,” which could imply a reduction in direct confrontation and more room for deals. For Europe, the problem is that such a framework reduces the predictability of American security commitments and increases the pressure on the EU to independently formulate deterrence, support for Ukraine, and a long-term policy toward Russia. Economic interests are at the forefront—not necessarily those of the US as a whole, but primarily those of individuals within or close to the US administration, who expect billions in profits from the lifting of sanctions and privileged access to the Russian market.
What Must Europe Do?
Europe is ill-prepared for this turning point. There is no longer room for maneuvering. The key response is the acceleration of integration and a serious discussion on how to reform the EU so that it is capable of responding to challenges faster and more independently—not only because of the American withdrawal but also due to broader competition in the military and geoeconomic sense.
There is not much entirely new in the new strategy; we have already heard most of these points from members of the US administration over the past year, and they should no longer surprise us. The difference is that now it is all written down: in black and white. And when transatlantic changes are translated into an official strategy, it ceases to be “merely” political rhetoric or tactics; it becomes a political framework.
Sharing is caring!