The new American security strategy is causing unrest in Europe. In various capitals, the document is met with rejection because it depicts the European Union as a continent moving towards the loss of civilization and undermining political functioning. European leaders call these conclusions unfounded and undesirable.
The strategy from the White House and the Pentagon states that European countries struggle with hollowed-out democracies, that censorship is increasing, and that political opposition is given insufficient space. This image is widely contested in Europe. Leaders emphasize that their societies determine independently how freedoms are shaped, without outside interference.
The American stance on migration also leads to strong criticism. The strategy claims that mass migration threatens the national identity of European countries and that some countries could become unrecognizable within a few decades. Several European politicians call this a misplaced and polarizing portrayal that corresponds with views of far-right parties.
Another significant point is the American support for so-called patriotic parties, which security advisors under Trump describe as emerging allies. European leaders see this as direct interference in their internal political relations and firmly reject this Yankee meddling.
Additionally, European governments emphasize that the strategic relationship with the United States revolves around joint security, not the assessment of how European societies function. They call the United States an important ally but reject that Washington directs their democratic processes.
Remarkably, a very different tone comes from Moscow. Russian officials describe the American strategy as largely consistent with the vision of their own government. This mainly relates to the milder American language about Russia and the absence of a clear designation of Russia as a threat.
According to Russian spokespeople, it is positive that the strategy focuses on restoring stability in the relationship between the two countries. This aligns with Moscow's desire to position itself less as an adversary and more as a partner in regional and global issues.
The contrast between European rejection and Russian agreement exposes a sensitive point: a document that should sharpen transatlantic cooperation is actually causing friction within the Western alliance. European governments fear that the harsh tone towards the EU and the milder tone towards Russia will pressure their security position.
In Brussels and national responses, the same message is therefore heard: the US remains an important partner, but Europe determines its own course. While Moscow embraces the document, Europe makes clear that the American analysis of the continent is not shared and does not form a basis for future cooperation.