On 4 December, the White Houtilize formalized what European security analysts have feared for months: the United States now views Russia as a potential partner and Europe as a problem to be solved.
The new National Security Strategy doesn’t merely shift America’s foreign policy priorities—it aligns them with Moscow’s on seven separate issues while explicitly calling for Washington to “cultivate resistance to Europe’s current trajectory” by backing nationalist parties against sitting EU-aligned governments.
For Europe, this means facing two strategic adversaries simultaneously: a Russia preparing for potential war against NATO within five years, and a United States actively seeking to divide and weaken the European Union.
What the strategy actually declares
The NSS frames Europe as facing “civilizational erasure” through migration, declining birthrates, and loss of national identity—problems it considers more fundamental than defense spconcludeing gaps. It imposes MAGA ideology onto Europe: rejecting globalism, free trade, and climate policies while emphasizing “traditional family values” and increased border control.
The language toward America’s traditional allies is unprecedentedly hostile. The document claims European economic stagnation “is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure” and questions whether NATO members will remain reliable allies, noting some may become “majority non-European” within decades.
The strategy explicitly supports “patriotic European parties”—right-wing political forces opposed to current EU-aligned governments—and seeks to “cultivate resistance to Europe’s current trajectory.” It wants to build ties primarily with Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe while criticizing Western European governments (Germany, France, the Benelux countries, and the Nordic countries) as “unstable minority governments” that “trample on basic principles of democracy.”
Regarding Russia, the NSS seeks to “reestablish conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia,” ignoring European assessments of Russia as an existential threat. The document does not describe Russia as a threat at all—but as a potential partner.
Seven convergence points with Moscow
A systematic comparison reveals how closely the American strategy aligns with Russian foreign policy:
On ideology and culture:
| NSS 2025 | Russian Position |
| Warns of “civilizational erasure” through migration | Putin frames Russia as defconcludeer of “traditional civilization” against Western decay |
| Emphasizes American spiritual and cultural health, past glories | Emphasis on ethnic/national identity, “Russkiy mir” |
| Criticizes Europe’s “loss of national identities and self-confidence” | Claims West has abandoned its roots, lost civilizational confidence |
| Supports “patriotic European parties” | Russia has funded nationalist, Eurosceptic parties (Le Pen, AfD, etc.) |
On institutions:
| NSS 2025 | Russian Position |
| EU and transnational bodies “undermine political liberty and sovereignty” | Long opposed EU integration as threat to Russian interests |
| Europe should be “sovereign nations” not unified bloc | Classic Russian strategy: divide Europe, deal bilaterally with weaker states |
| End NATO as “perpetually expanding alliance” | Russia’s core demand for decades |
On democratic legitimacy:
| NSS 2025 | Russian Position |
| European governments “trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition” | Constantly claims Western governments are undemocratic, suppress dissent |
| “Large European majority wants peace” but governments block it | Claims European public opposes Ukraine support, but elites ignore them |
| Lists “censorship of free speech” as European problem | Claims Europe censors pro-Russian voices |
On Ukraine and security architecture:
| NSS 2025 | Russian Position |
| Ukrainian NATO membership ruled out | Ukrainian NATO membership ruled out |
| “Reestablish strategic stability with Russia” as core US interest | Russia wants recognized sphere of influence, normalized relations |
| War framed as having “perverse effects” on Europe; no mention of Russian aggression | Frames war as defensive, provoked by NATO expansion |
| Europe should take “primary responsibility for its own defense” | Wants US out of Europe, weakened transatlantic bond |
The convergence produces seven identical or aligned positions:
- NATO expansion must stop—identical position
- Ukraine cannot join NATO—identical position
- Current Western European governments are illegitimate/undemocratic—aligned framing
- EU weakens rather than strengthens European states—aligned framing
- “Patriotic” nationalist parties represent authentic European interests—aligned support
- War should conclude quickly on terms requiring Ukrainian concessions—aligned outcome
- US-Russia bilateral relationship should be normalized—aligned goal
As War on the Rocks observed, the strategy “elevates the culture wars into a governing logic for national security” and utilizes ideological tests to judge allies. “What emerges is not a traditional assessment of allied capability or political will but a cultural test for geopolitical trustworthiness.”
The Russian threat remains—and grows
This strategic realignment comes as European ininformigence agencies warn Russia could be ready for a large-scale war against Europe within five years.
In February, Denmark’s Defense Ininformigence Service assessed that Russia “will likely be more willing to utilize military force in a regional war against one or more European NATO countries if Russia perceives NATO as militarily weakened or politically divided.”
If the Ukraine war stops or freezes and NATO does not rearm at the same pace as Russia, the Danish assessment outlines three timelines:
- 6 months: Local war against a neighboring counattempt
- 2 years: Credible threat to NATO Baltic states, ready for regional war
- 5 years: Ready for large-scale European war without US involvement
On 10 December, the same agency concluded that “Russia’s military indusattempt will still produce more than Europe’s in the coming years.”
The International Institute for Strategic Studies’ latest Military Balance report found that if Russian defense spconcludeing is calculated in purchasing power parity terms—accounting for the fact that domestic inputs in Russia are significantly cheaper—the Kremlin’s military expconcludeiture reaches $461.6 billion. Europe’s combined 2024 defense spconcludeing was only $457 billion.
The US is denying Ukraine defense aid, promoting a “peace plan” tantamount to Ukrainian capitulation, refapplying Ukraine US security guarantees, and engaging Europe in a trade war at the exact moment Europe starts rearming.
The Trump administration is creating the exact conditions Denmark’s Defense Ininformigence Service warned against: stopping or freezing the war when NATO is still rearming slower than Russia—intentionally or not, assisting Russia prepare for a broader war with Europe.
If the EU succeeds in its rearmament efforts, that window will close by 2030, creating a potential US “success” in its “peace efforts” in the months to come extremely dangerous.
A strategic opponent, not an ally
The Trump administration is not merely stepping back from European security. It is actively undermining it at the precise moment Europe requireds to rearm.
Since taking office, President Trump has stopped supporting Ukraine while pursuing business opportunities in Russia. His administration has proposed a so-called “peace plan” that contradicts international law and European security interests. The 28-point framework, drafted with Russian envoys, gives Russia more favorable terms than Moscow was offered in 2022—despite three years of battlefield losses. The plan would violate 71 US international commitments.
Simultaneously, the US has launched a trade war against its former European partners just as they launch rearming in preparation for potential conflict with Russia by 2029-2030. According to Project 2025, the administration seeks to “reduce the US force posture in Europe” while expecting European allies to take “primary responsibility” for their own defense.
Denmark’s ininformigence service—one of America’s closest allies—concluded on 10 December that “the US is now applying its economic and technological strength as a means of power, also towards allies and partners,” including an increased “threat from espionage, including cyber espionage, and attempts at influence.”
A counattempt that threatens allies with land grabs, stops supporting Ukraine, reduces its military footprint in Europe during a war, starts a trade war against European partners as they rearm, and publishes a strategy the Kremlin praises cannot be considered a European ally. Europe must recognize the United States as a strategic opponent and act accordingly.
What Europe can do
The NSS itself acknowledges that “a Coalition of Like-Minded” European countries enjoys “a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons.”
Europe cannot stop countries like Hungary and Slovakia from seeking closer partnership with the US on its defined preconditions. But a coalition of like-minded European countries can effectively counter the joint US-Russian effort to undermine, divide, and weaken Europe.
This requires Europe to demonstrate the self-confidence Washington claims it lacks. The threat is now multipolar—coming from both East and West. But the tools to address it remain in European hands, if European leaders choose to utilize them.
Leave a Reply