Europe’s real problems just got deeper

It never rains, but it pours. That is a fair description of European security at the end of 2025. As if Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine wasn’t enough, now the forecasts indicate heavy storms from Washington as well. Two documents published in recent weeks are likely to keep European decision-makers up at night, namely the US-Russian 28-point peace plan for Ukraine and the new US National Security Strategy 2025. 

The peace plan – although it’s fair to ask whether it really amounts to a plan as it’s rather a sketch – has shocked Europeans. It follows the model of the Gaza Peace Plan, which was also negotiated by business associates of the President, not professional diplomats. Europeans have clearly been sidelined and confronted with ideas focused more on economically or financially beneficial Russian-US relations than on a secure Ukraine or even a stable European Security Order. On top of that it shows a US administration that has switched roles from being an ally of Europe and supporter of Ukraine to that of peace broker, almost in a commercial sense, entailing exorbitant fees and high political costs for the Ukrainian and European governments. And even though the Europeans managed to boil the 28 points down to 19 topics that better reflect Ukrainian and European priorities, they still depend on the whim of the American administration to even put these priorities forward in talks with the Russians. Europeans might be left just sitting on the sidelines and commenting on the spectacle. 

But while the Europeans were waiting to hear the outcome of these decisive (for Europe) talks, taking place elsewhere, they were confronted with another American document capable of giving them nightmares, the new National Security Strategy 2025. It makes for dire reading, especially the parts focusing on Europe. The chapter titled »Promoting European Greatness« (why not Make Europe Great Again?) purports to explain what Europe’s »real« problems are. They are not economic decline or a lack of military spending, but rather the »stark prospect of civilizational erasure«. What this really means is what is framed as the undermining of political liberties and of course the wrong migration policies. This reveals a US government perfectly ready to meddle directly in European politics. 

Regarding Ukraine, the US National Security Strategy claims to have identified a large European majority who crave peace, but whose governments misrepresent them by subverting democratic processes. What can European decision-makers expect from such an ally (although one might ask whether that term is still even applicable)? That is laid out in no uncertain terms. The US’s first priority in Europe is: »Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia«. It goes on to talk of »Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations«, opening up markets for US goods, ending the understanding of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance and encouraging the continent to dismantle hostile (to the US) economic practices. 

The Peace Plan must have come as a shock, but there was so much more where that came from. Europeans need to get their act together, urgently and decisively. Without Europe a sustainable peace for Ukraine is impossible to imagine, but the current US administration doesn’t care about peace or its sustainability. It has an agenda for the whole of Europe and ending hostilities in Ukraine is just the first step.