Adding fuel to the fire in European politics
Aftonbladet worries about how the US will influence elections in Europe:
“Domestic politics are already very complicated in many European countries, and there are several important elections coming up in the next few years. Next year, Hungary will hold elections, and the following year, France will elect a new president. In Spain and Italy, elections will take place in 2027 at the latest. In Germany, the far-right AfD party is almost as strong as the ruling Christian Democrat party [in the polls], and in the UK, the like-minded Reform UK party is leading the opinion polls. And now Donald Trump wants to add fuel to the fire.”
Trump mobilises supporters worldwide
Columnist Fehmi Koru comments on Trump’s influence on illiberal movements in Europe in the daily newspaper Karar:
“Among those who are no doubt pleased by this are the political leaders who – described as ‘illiberal’ because of their indifference to democracy – have gained momentum in Europe in recent years and profoundly influenced the politics of several countries. Trump will not be content with leaving an indelible mark on the US alone but will also try to impose his ideological preferences worldwide.”
This isn’t over yet
The future is also in our hands, Ouest-France stresses:
“The text is clear, but we shouldn’t read too much into it. Even if Europeans are being targeted and increasingly treated as vassals in Donald Trump’s mind, this isn’t over yet. Our response will be just as crucial as this attack. Do we want to become vassals (of Washington) or allow ourselves to be attacked (by Moscow) without putting up a fight? Or do we want to define our own sphere of influence? … An extraordinary EU summit would not be such an absurd idea in this context. It’s important to remain calm – but to not react at all would be embarrassing.”
Time and elections not on Europe’s side
Europe faces a mammoth task, Helsingin Sanomat stresses:
“European countries have the power to keep Russia in check if they can agree on a united stance and have the political will to do so. … The problem is the lack of time. It will take ten to 15 years to fill the military vacuum left by the US. But they may not have that much time, and elections are constantly being held in European countries, which can be influenced by hostile measures. It’s interesting to observe the upheavals in world order but it’s unpleasant to live at the centre of it all.”
Vance’s thumbprint
The document provides an insight into the possible policies of a future President Vance, says Maszol:
“The document is less a reflection of Trumpism and more a sign of an even more extreme version of it known as Vanceism. … This process will probably only really come to fruition under a Vance presidency, but in any case, this national strategy can safely be described as the intellectual product of Vance and the circle of thinkers who back him. The strategic depth of this document and its entirely new direction are a far cry from Trump’s superficial thinking.”
Welcome to the new reality
El Mundo sees Europe at an historic turning point:
“The Trump administration confirmed yesterday that Europe cannot continue to depend on the US for military and strategic support. … And it admits that the US will support ‘patriotic European parties’ – in other words, nationalist and identitarian groups – to help the old continent ‘correct its course’. The warning is unmistakable: the lights are going out and from now on it will be up to the EU to guarantee of its own security. … This has nothing to do with the inconsistencies that have characterised Trump’s behaviour on other occasions, but is part of a carefully crafted strategy to reconfigure the world order. … Washington’s change of course presents Europe with an historic challenge.”
We should all become like Hungary
The US is abandoning democratic values and wants Europe to follow suit, Público concludes:
“We already knew that the Trump administration had reversed American foreign policy and that one of the most significant changes was the abandonment of the very democratic values that shaped it. We already knew that Donald Trump does not respect Nato and that Europe is in danger of losing American protection at the very moment when it is facing a direct threat to its security. Now we know that the Atlantic Alliance, which has prevailed against all odds precisely because it was based on common principles and values shared by its democracies, will only survive if all European nations become like Hungary.”
Blatant meddling by Washington
Dennik Postoj comments:
“The Trump administration appears to be driven by a desire to proselytise, to impose its views on migration and other issues on other countries. Plenty of European policies do indeed deserve criticism. But the new US security strategy envisages a blatant encroachment on the sovereignty of European states on a level that no previous American administration has dared to attempt. Under normal circumstances, Europe would be justified in flatly rejecting such statements from Washington. But the Europeans currently don’t have a leg to stand on; they must try to appease their security guarantor, at least for now, until they can somehow replace the United States in Europe’s security policy.”
Europe will have to suck this up for now
The Tages-Anzeiger sums up the situation:
“In the short-term, the Europeans will just have to suck up the provocations issuing from the White House. … Resisting flatteries and golden gifts while at the same time promising to invest in our own security demands an element of self-denial, but one that is necessary, because we currently have 80,000 indispensable US troops stationed in Europe. At the same time the Europeans will have to stay true to their values and be very clear about rejecting Washington’s attempts to meddle in its affairs. The White House seems to see Europe’s future in the ‘patriotic’ (i.e. far-fight populist) parties, who are either anti-immigrant or anti-supranational structures like the EU. But the Europeans should neither tolerate attacks on their democracies nor turn their back on the EU – that would only make it easier for Washington and Moscow to divide Europe.”
Standing on its own two feet at last
Europe cannot continue to depend on the US for its security policy, the Sunday Times warns:
“The more we bow at Trump’s feet, the more he will wield American power to divide and humiliate us. In fact all western politicians should assume for practical purposes that Trump will not honour the Nato guarantee; it might finally cause us to become serious about defence, about standing on our own two feet. That is, of course, the great challenge for our country and continent. The alternative is to become victims of ever more merciless extortion, not just from Trump but Putin and Xi. And you might say: we will kind of deserve it.”
At least Russia is satisfied
For Svenska Dagbladet, the US’s announcement should come as no surprise as this course has been on the cards since the Security Conference in Munich:
“A lot has happened in international relations since February. Trump’s national security strategy will nevertheless come under close scrutiny, and one thing that certainly stands out is that Russia, the US’s old arch-enemy, is neither criticised nor is it described as a threat. Indeed Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov gave his nod of approval from Moscow on the weekend. The changes in Trump’s strategy are ‘broadly consistent with our vision’, Peskov said.”
Washington just wants stability
Political scientist Viktor Shlinchak draws conclusions for Ukraine on Facebook:
“The US just wants predictability on the European front. It’s not pushing for peace ‘on the aggressors’ terms’ but it also doesn’t want an endless back and forth. It wants a stable situation that does not exhaust resources. The other thing is that it now sees Ukraine within the context of its relations with China. … When it comes to future negotiations, guarantees or agreements the US will ask in each case: ‘Could this weaken the US’s position against China?’ And, finally, security guarantees are not just words any more. The goal is to curb Russia’s military capacity. So the emphasis is on deterrence, not on sending the world back to 1991.”