There is no doubt that when the most militarily and economically powerful country in the world publishes its National Security Strategy, it is international top news. And it deserves special attention.
On December 5, Washington published the new US National Security Strategy.
Its content produced two major news stories: first, that the United States is striving for a quick end to the war in Ukraine (without much importance as to what kind of end); and second, that Europe is facing "civilizational obliteration". It also provoked numerous reactions, including from official representatives of the EU and the Russian Federation.
The full text of the strategy is available on the White House website. And the purpose of this article is to analyze the strategy from the point of view of our, European interest (pp. 25-27 are dedicated to relations with Europe). For this purpose, I will allow myself to present specific quotes, translated from English to Bulgarian automatically with an online translator, intentionally left unedited - in order to minimize the subjective element (after all, the choice of quotes is subjective, but everyone is free to read the text in the original and translate it for themselves).
Many observers almost panicked that President Donald Trump's "new course" is breaking the allied relations between the United States and the European NATO member states.
Yes, but the section itself, dedicated to Europe, is entitled "Promoting European greatness". I still think that this has nothing to do with the intention of abandoning anyone, but perhaps this title is dictated by diplomacy. So let's get to the point.
"Continental Europe is losing its share of world GDP - from 25% in 1990 to 14% today - partly because of national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and hard work. But this economic decline is overshadowed by the real and more dire prospect of the disappearance of civilization.
The larger problems facing Europe include the activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political freedom and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating conflict, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, falling birth rates, and the loss of national identity and self-esteem.
If current trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. It is therefore far from clear whether some European countries will have strong enough economies and armies to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently redoubling their efforts on their current path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory strangulation." (emphasis mine - b.a.)
The critical tone is clearly felt here, but combined with concern. A bit like a parent nagging and guiding his "wayward" child. It sounds harsh, but not hostile. Another question is why Europe has come to this situation...
"The main interest of the United States is to negotiate a rapid cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent an unwanted escalation or expansion of the war, and restore strategic stability with Russia, as well as to allow Ukraine to recover after the hostilities so that it can survive as a viable state." - Well, here the "discrepancies" between European and American interests regarding the war in Ukraine are clearly visible. What I have said before: this war concerns us, but Americans - not so much.
"Yet Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States." - This needs no comment.
"American diplomacy must continue to advocate for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and an uncompromising celebration of the individual character and history of European peoples. America encourages its political allies in Europe to support this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties is indeed cause for great optimism." - Oops, is Washington openly favoring the "far right" that Brussels dislikes?
"Our goal must be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe that can help us compete successfully and work in cooperation with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe." - In a sense, this can also be understood as interference in our internal affairs. But it could also be "leading by the hand", to which Europe has been accustomed for decades.
Prioritizations are also listed, namely:
Restoring stability in Europe and strategic stability with Russia;
Enabling Europe to stand on its own two feet and function as a group of allied sovereign states, including by assuming primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any hostile power;
Cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European states;
Opening European markets to American goods and services and ensuring fair treatment for American workers and businesses;
Building strong states in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through trade ties, arms sales, political cooperation, and cultural and educational exchanges;
Ending the perception and preventing the reality of NATO as an ever-expanding alliance; and
Encouraging Europe to take action to combat mercantilist overcapacity, technology theft, cyberespionage, and other hostile economic practices.
Two conclusions follow from all of this:
One is that for the first time since the end of World War II, the United States and Europe (excluding the Eastern Bloc until 1989) find themselves ideological opponents. The United States has seen a succession of Republican and Democratic presidents, and in Western (and, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Central and Eastern) Europe, right-wing and left-wing governments (as well as broad coalitions) have alternated, but never before on either side of the Atlantic have there been such serious ideological disagreements - to the point where the "enemies" of one government turn out to be the "friends" of the other. And vice versa.
The other conclusion is that despite these "different views on art", the US and Europe are still geopolitical allies. Except that the key point is "still" - if Europe does not change course, the "ship may sail".
What is the useful move for Europe?
Well, to begin with, it should admit that Trump is right (we assume that he is behind the current Strategy). And Putin was right in most cases when he criticized today's Europe. Which does not mean that the solution to our problems will come from the US or from Russia, or from somewhere else.
Europe should follow the recommendations in the American strategy, but not for the sake of the US and Trump, but for its own sake. In order to return at least some of its past greatness. And to be adequate on the international stage.
Europe must make two radical changes in its policies:
The first is to immediately stop all the green nonsense, carbon quotas, and so on. But when I say immediately, I mean immediately. Starting tomorrow. Because it is precisely because of these simple things that European economies have turned out to be "stuck", uncompetitive, and practically unable to provide the necessary military assistance to Ukraine in full.
And here is the place for a very eloquent example. Many claim that since Trump returned to the White House, the US has abandoned and betrayed Ukraine. No, my dears, that has not happened yet. A real abandonment would be if Washington cut off Kiev's access to "Starlink". And if this happens, Europe cannot currently provide a similar technology.
The second necessary change is related to mass migration (illegal, but also legal, which is probably the bigger problem). If the demographic replacement of the continent is not stopped, everything else loses its meaning.
Against this background, even LGBT+ policies are not such a problem. And the Americans should not speak too much on this topic, because that's where it started.
Europe should not blindly and unquestioningly follow American "guidance", but it should not continue with pointless persistence on some topics. For example:
On the one hand, the European Union rightly "played off" Elon Musk with his insane call to abolish the European Union. And even after the breakup with Trump, Musk is no longer the same factor in American politics as he was in the first months of the year. But on the other hand, it is high time for European officials to stop trying to censor social networks - because this is actually what is hidden behind the 120 million euro fine for "Ex".
Of course, it is much easier to formulate than to implement. And it is simply not clear how these recommendations would be implemented by the current European political elite, the majority of whom are directly to blame for Europe finding itself on the brink of the abyss. Therefore, those responsible must bear their responsibility.
And the culprits are the leading European politicians of the last 20 years or so. To begin with, Ursula von der Leyen and the members of the European Commission she heads should resign. And then they should be held accountable for the crimes committed against our continent. Together with the previous Commissions - the "sciatica-stricken" Juncker, the former Maoist Barroso... And all the Macrons, Ruttes, Scholzs, Merkels plus the rest who set the European tone (to sound false). Not so much in the hope of receiving effective sentences, but because the investigation will require them to be examined for sanity.
It is not at all necessary that the European "leaders" who made Europe a laughing stock are part of some conspiracy to destroy our civilization.
Nor that they were "bought" by our geopolitical opponents (although Gerhard Schröder was rewarded with a high position in "Gazprom"). It is more likely that we are talking about mass insanity, especially among those who followed Greta Thunberg's lead.
Something like the senile senility in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU from the late 70s and early 80s - except that ours are not so old...
But let's get back to the strategy. It practically does not say anything revolutionary new, and the findings and recommendations for Europe have been repeated for years by conservative and nationalist, "far-right" European circles (I, for example, have been speaking and writing about them for about 15 years).
But to have them formulated in the US National Security Strategy is another level.