President Donald Trump aims to leave a legacy as a peacemaker, boasting eight peace agreements achieved in the past year, including a notable accord involving Gaza. His administration has promoted the U.S. Institute for Peace and even sought a Nobel Peace Prize. However, elements of his new National Security Strategy may undermine this vision, potentially branding him as the president who allowed Vladimir Putin to miscalculate and instigate a significant conflict in Europe.
The recently unveiled strategy draws on over a century of U.S. foreign policy, identifying the Western Hemisphere as America’s foremost priority. It introduces a new Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt’s interventionist policies. The strategy also echoes the tariff policies of William McKinley and the economic approaches of William Howard Taft, intertwining isolationist elements reminiscent of post-World War I sentiment.
While Trump’s strategy includes constructive components, emphasizing “peace through strength” akin to Ronald Reagan‘s doctrine, it raises significant concerns about U.S. commitment to NATO. The strategy expresses support for European security but refrains from reinforcing the definitive language of NATO’s Article 5, which commits allies to collective defense. This shift could lead to doubts regarding America’s willingness to defend its European partners.
Concerns Over European Defense and U.S. Commitment
The strategy’s language suggests a troubling departure from the unequivocal support articulated by President Joe Biden, who has assured that the U.S. will defend “every inch” of NATO territory. The Trump administration’s approach could create an impression of reduced commitment, potentially emboldening Putin to perceive Europe as vulnerable.
The document criticizes European economies, labeling them as “in decline” due to over-regulation, and suggests that certain countries risk “civilizational erasure.” It encourages European nations to assume greater responsibility for their own defense, proposing an unrealistic 2027 deadline for Europe to replace U.S. military capabilities, including battlefield intelligence and missile defense systems.
As the strategy emphasizes military deterrence in Asia, particularly regarding the South China Sea and Taiwan, it allocates Europe a lower priority in terms of deterrence against Russian aggression. The failure to adequately address Europe’s needs for defense could embolden adversarial actions.
The administration’s call for a swift cessation of hostilities in Ukraine overlooks Russia’s role as the aggressor. It suggests that European governments hold “unrealistic expectations” for a peace process, neglecting the necessity of recognizing Putin’s opposition to a ceasefire.
Steps Towards Re-establishing Deterrence
To mitigate these risks, immediate action is required. Trump should reaffirm America’s defense commitments to NATO and maintain troop presence in Europe. Furthermore, Europe must accelerate its military investments, aiming to meet the proposed 5% of GDP defense spending by 2035 while continuing to supply Ukraine with necessary military support.
A new transatlantic compact may be essential to redefine roles and responsibilities within the alliance, ensuring both sides are prepared for future challenges. The historical context of miscalculations leading to war underscores the urgency of establishing credible deterrence. Past leaders, from Kaiser Wilhelm II to Saddam Hussein, have faced dire consequences for underestimating adversaries.
As Trump navigates this complex landscape, the potential for miscalculation looms large. A clear commitment to NATO and European security is crucial to prevent a repeat of history. The stakes are high, as both the United States and Europe must act decisively to foster a stable and secure international environment.
Hans Binnendijk, a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and former senior director for Defense Policy, emphasizes the need for clarity in U.S. commitments to ensure peace and stability are upheld for future generations.
