Days of near-complete silence followed Washington’s December 4th release of its National Security Strategy—a document that explicitly calls for “cultivating resistance” within European nations and warns of Europe’s “civilizational erasure.” This muted response betrays deeper paralysis: European governments recognize their security architecture faces fundamental transformation yet lack unified vision for autonomous action.
“Make Europe Great Again” Through Far-Right Support
The strategy document breaks unprecedented ground by endorsing interference in allied domestic politics. An unpublished longer version identifies Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland as countries the U.S. should “work more with…with the goal of pulling them away from the European Union” while supporting “parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life.”
This represents ideological warfare against Brussels institutions. The document accuses Europe of facing “prospect of civilizational erasure” through immigration policies, declining birthrates, “censorship of free speech” and “loss of national identities”—rhetoric former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt characterized as “language that one otherwise only finds coming out of some bizarre minds of the Kremlin”.
Former French Ambassador to the U.S. Gérard Araud described the Europe section as reading “like a far-right pamphlet”, confirming perceptions that Trump functions as “enemy of Europe.” Yet despite this rhetorical assault, European Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho could only state leaders had not yet “had the time to look into the document”—hardly credible response to existential challenge.
The strategic logic becomes transparent: Washington seeks European political transformation favoring nationalist movements that would fragment EU cohesion, facilitating bilateral deals with weakened individual states rather than negotiating with Brussels as unified bloc. Chatham House analysts note the document “breaks with decades of US stated policy” by explicitly advocating interference in allied domestic politics while claiming non-intervention elsewhere.
Defense Spending Pledges Fail Credibility Test
European leaders point to announced defense increases as evidence of resolve. EU member states’ defense expenditure reached €343 billion in 2024, projected to climb to €381 billion in 2025—an 11% increase. The European Commission’s ReArm Europe plan aims to leverage €800 billion in defense spending through 2029, including €150 billion in EU-backed loans through the SAFE programme.
Yet public confidence remains absent. Despite anti-Russia sentiment and pro-Ukraine majorities, European populations tell pollsters they do not believe their countries can militarily confront Russia—hardly surprising given decades of political messaging that European security depends fundamentally on American guarantees. Leadership complicity in perpetuating dependency narratives now undermines credibility when circumstances demand autonomous capability assertions.
The Russian navy’s Black Sea losses and constrained air force operations demonstrate conventional weakness that defense budgets should theoretically address. However, skepticism persists about whether increased spending will prove more effective than past national allocations—or materialize at all given fiscal constraints and political resistance within member states.
Most critically, announced increases still fall short of requirements for genuine strategic autonomy. If EU states had maintained 2% GDP defense spending from 2006-2020, it would have generated €1.1 trillion additional expenditure—more than annual American defense budgets. Two decades of underinvestment cannot be rectified through single budget cycles.
Frozen Assets Decision Demonstrates Capability When Unity Exists
European capacity for decisive action emerged through frozen Russian assets handling. The EU indefinitely froze €210 billion in Russian Central Bank assets on December 12th, eliminating requirements for unanimous six-month renewals that Hungary and Slovakia could veto. Using Article 122 treaty provisions for economic emergencies, Brussels circumvented standard consensus requirements.
EU Council President António Costa stated the freeze remains “until Russia ends its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates for the damage caused”—effectively tying unfreezing to war termination rather than periodic political negotiations. This prevents assets’ inclusion in American-Russian peace negotiations without European consent, addressing concerns that Trump’s leaked 28-point plan stipulated EU release of frozen assets for use by Ukraine, Russia and the United States.
The decision enables a “reparations loan” of approximately €90 billion to Ukraine covering 2026-2027 budgetary and military needs, with repayment required only after Russia pays war reparations. Belgian resistance initially threatened the scheme due to fears that Brussels-based Euroclear—holding €185 billion of frozen assets—could face Russian legal action. The indefinite freeze provides guarantees necessary for Belgian cooperation.
This represents Europe’s most significant autonomous financial commitment to Ukraine, demonstrating institutional capacity for unified action when political will coalesces. The symbolic importance matches practical value: Brussels can make consequential decisions independent of Washington when member state majorities support action despite illiberal vetoes.
Unity Cracks Undermine Strategic Messaging
Yet frozen assets progress cannot obscure deeper fragmentation. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accused the European Commission of “systematically raping European law” while Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico warned the measure “could directly jeopardize US peace efforts.” These Russian Trojan horses within EU institutions increasingly paralyze collective action beyond qualified majority provisions.
Divisions extend beyond Budapest and Bratislava. Resolute Baltic and Nordic states grow frustrated with laggard southern and western European partners hesitant about sustained military commitments. National populism gains ground across multiple member states, fostered through Russian propaganda and subversion—now potentially amplified by American support for far-right movements explicitly outlined in National Security Strategy documents.
This opens grim scenarios where Ukraine’s fall enables Russian-American collusion to divide and progressively subordinate European states, reducing Brussels to irrelevance. As Napoleon observed, in warfare the moral is to the material as three is to one. Europe possesses material means for self-defense; lacking is confidence and determination from chancelleries to populations.
Symbolic Action Must Transform Into Sustained Strategy
The frozen assets decision demonstrates Brussels can act decisively when existential pressures overwhelm internal divisions. Yet isolated symbolic gestures prove insufficient against systematic challenges. European populations require sharper understanding of stakes involved and how civilian society complements military capabilities during extended competition.
Leaders must ask whether Trumpian diagnosis of terminal weakness surprises them—and whether they accept this as historical epitaph when pressure intensifies further. The National Security Strategy functions as explicit notice that transatlantic alliance as Europeans understood it has ended. Washington pursues “strategic stability” with Moscow and “mutually advantageous economic relationship” with Beijing while treating democratic European allies as civilizational failures requiring political correction.
CSIS analysts characterize the document as “real, painful, shocking wake-up call for Europe” representing “cavernous divergence between Europe’s view of itself and Trump’s vision for Europe.” The question becomes whether shock produces paralysis or galvanizes transformation.
Sustaining Ukraine through European resources alone requires acknowledging sacrifices ahead—not just increased defense budgets but fundamental reorientation toward strategic autonomy that decades of comfortable dependency made unnecessary. If Europe cannot muster unity and resolve for Ukraine support, Moscow and Washington will correctly conclude that European claims about defending collective interests represent empty rhetoric.
The death of the West may prove premature diagnosis—but only if Europeans demonstrate through actions rather than statements that they possess both means and will for autonomous strategic action. Days of silence following National Security Strategy release suggest this transformation remains aspirational rather than imminent.
Original analysis inspired by Nick Witney from European Council on Foreign Relations. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
