USA EU Van Der Leyen Trump
Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speak to the press at his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, 27 July 2025. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP/Eastnews

Europe now faces two strategic adversaries: Russia and the United States

Trump’s security strategy calls for “cultivating resistance” against EU governments
Europe now faces two strategic adversaries: Russia and the United States

On 4 December, the White House 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 says

The NSS frames Europe as facing "civilizational erasure" through migration, declining birthrates, and loss of national identity—problems it considers more fundamental than defense spending 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 2025Russian Position
Warns of "civilizational erasure" through migrationPutin frames Russia as defender of "traditional civilization" against Western decay
Emphasizes American spiritual and cultural health, past gloriesEmphasis 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 2025Russian 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 blocClassic 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 2025Russian 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 itClaims European public opposes Ukraine support, but elites ignore them
Lists "censorship of free speech" as European problemClaims Europe censors pro-Russian voices

On Ukraine and security architecture:

NSS 2025Russian Position
Ukrainian NATO membership ruled outUkrainian NATO membership ruled out
"Reestablish strategic stability with Russia" as core US interestRussia wants recognized sphere of influence, normalized relations
War framed as having "perverse effects" on Europe; no mention of Russian aggressionFrames 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:

  1. NATO expansion must stop—identical position
  2. Ukraine cannot join NATO—identical position
  3. Current Western European governments are illegitimate/undemocratic—aligned framing
  4. EU weakens rather than strengthens European states—aligned framing
  5. "Patriotic" nationalist parties represent authentic European interests—aligned support
  6. War should end quickly on terms requiring Ukrainian concessions—aligned outcome
  7. 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 uses 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."

zelenskyy in france
Explore further

Trump’s NSS proves Europe and Ukraine are on their own—and must save themselves

The Russian threat remains—and grows

This strategic realignment comes as European intelligence agencies warn Russia could be ready for a large-scale war against Europe within five years.

In February, Denmark's Defense Intelligence Service assessed that Russia "will likely be more willing to use 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 country
  • 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 industry 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 spending is calculated in purchasing power parity terms—accounting for the fact that domestic inputs in Russia are significantly cheaper—the Kremlin's military expenditure reaches $461.6 billion. Europe's combined 2024 defense spending was only $457 billion.

The US is denying Ukraine defense aid, promoting a "peace plan" tantamount to Ukrainian capitulation, refusing 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 Intelligence Service warned against: stopping or freezing the war when NATO is still rearming slower than Russia—intentionally or not, helping Russia prepare for a broader war with Europe.

If the EU succeeds in its rearmament efforts, that window will close by 2030, making a potential US "success" in its "peace efforts" in the months to come extremely dangerous.

Trump peace plan Vance
Explore further

Washington tried to profit from Ukraine’s ruins. Europe, what’s your move?

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 needs 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 begin 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 intelligence service—one of America's closest allies—concluded on 10 December that "the US is now using 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 country 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 use them.

Explore further

It’s your war. You’ve just outsourced the dying.

Hans Petter Midttun, independent analyst on hybrid warfare, Non-Resident Fellow at the Centre for Defense Strategies, board member of the Ukrainian Institute for Security and Law of the Sea, former Defense Attaché of Norway to Ukraine, and officer (R) of the Norwegian Armed Forces. 

Editor's note. The opinions expressed in our Opinion section belong to their authors. Euromaidan Press' editorial team may or may not share them.

Submit an opinion to Euromaidan Press

To suggest a correction or clarification, write to us here

You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter

Please leave your suggestions or corrections here



    Euromaidan Press

    We are an independent media outlet that relies solely on advertising revenue to sustain itself. We do not endorse or promote any products or services for financial gain. Therefore, we kindly ask for your support by disabling your ad blocker. Your assistance helps us continue providing quality content. Thank you!

    Related Posts