The Document That Rewrote 77 Years of Security Architecture
The United States National Security Strategy published in December 2024 represents a significant rupture in transatlantic relations since President Harry Truman delivered an 18-minute speech in March 1947 pledging American support to defend Europe against Soviet expansion, BBC noted. This week, as more than 50 world leaders gather at the Munich Security Conference with European security at a crossroads, they will confront the consequences of a strategic shift that many saw coming but few adequately prepared for, per reporting from multiple outlets covering the conference.
The NSS document explicitly calls on Europe to "stand on its own feet" and take "primary responsibility for its own defence," a formulation that inverts nearly eight decades of American commitment, per Aol. That divergence will be on full display as US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio leads the American delegation to the conference, per Aol reporting.
The Truman Doctrine in Reverse
NATO has underpinned Europe's security for the past 77 years, Aol reported, a period of unprecedented peace on a continent that had experienced two catastrophic world wars in the first half of the twentieth century. The architecture was expensive, but it worked. Now the Trump administration has signaled through both word and deed that the arrangement is over.
The dismantlement operates through multiple mechanisms simultaneously. The Trump White House has applied punitive tariffs to allies and foes alike, Aol reported, weaponizing economic integration against the very partners it was designed to bind together.
The territorial dimension of the shift has been equally stark. Donald Trump has said he "needs to own" Greenland for US and global security, Aol reported. Trump did not rule out the use of force regarding Greenland, the same outlet noted. Denmark's prime minister responded that a hostile US military takeover would spell the end of the NATO alliance, according to Aol. Greenland is a self-governing territory belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally, Aol reported. Trump demanded that Canada should become the "51st state" of the US, per Aol reporting. Matthew Whitaker, the US ambassador to NATO, offered context for the Greenland interest: "The Chinese have taken two runs, at least at Greenland; one through the ports trying to invest in the ports and second, through trying to invest in the airport," he told The Guardian. But the framing of an ally's territory as something America "needs to own" represents a departure from the language of partnership that characterized previous administrations.
The Math That Explains European Dependency
Sir Alex Younger, who served as chief of the UK's Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, from 2014 to 2020, according to Aol, offered the bluntest assessment of the imbalance that has defined transatlantic security. "You've got a continent of 500 million [Europe], asking a continent of 300 million [US] to deal with a continent of 140 million [Russia]. It's the wrong way around. So I believe that Europe should take more responsibility for its own defence," Younger stated, per Aol reporting. Europe has a population of 500 million, the US has a population of 300 million, and Russia has a population of 140 million, according to the same outlet. The arithmetic is damning: a larger, wealthier continent has outsourced its security to a smaller one for nearly eight decades.
The spending disparities make the dependency even more difficult to justify. Russia currently spends more than 7% of GDP on defence, Aol reported, as its full-scale invasion of Ukraine is about to enter its fifth year, per the same outlet. NATO countries such as Spain have been failing to meet the minimum 2% of GDP on defence, Aol noted. Britain spends just under 2.5% of GDP on defence, according to Aol. The gap between what European nations spend and what the threat environment demands has widened precisely as American willingness to fill that gap has evaporated. Younger acknowledged complexity in the relationship: "We still benefit enormously from our security and military and intelligence relationship with America," he stated, per Aol. But benefit and dependency are different things, and Europe has allowed the latter to define its strategic posture.
The timeline of warnings makes the current predicament particularly difficult to excuse. JD Vance delivered a bombshell speech at last year's Munich Security Conference, Aol reported. The audience at Vance's speech were visibly stunned, the same outlet noted. Vance claimed the greatest threat Europe faces comes from within, according to Aol, and Vance castigated Europe for its policies on migration and free speech in his speech, per the same source. European leaders had more than a year between that speech and the publication of the NSS to begin serious defense investments. The conference this week will reveal what they did with that time.
The Three Pillars Under Assault
The first pillar, multilateral institutions, has been systematically undermined through the shift in NATO's fundamental premise. The NSS calls on Europe to take "primary responsibility for its own defence," according to Aol, language that inverts the alliance's founding logic. For 77 years, the United States served as the guarantor of European security, with European contributions supplementing American power. The new formulation suggests Europeans should defend themselves while Americans provide supplementary support, if any. Washington pursued uneven peace in Ukraine on terms favorable to Moscow, Aol reported, demonstrating that American priorities no longer align with European security interests even in the midst of an active war on the continent.
The second pillar, economic integration, has been weaponized rather than abandoned. The tariff regime treats allies and adversaries with similar suspicion, breaking the post-war consensus that economic interdependence among democracies served strategic purposes beyond mere commerce. The Trump administration conducted a raid on Venezuela, Aol reported, demonstrating willingness to use force in the Western Hemisphere while questioning commitments to European defense. The message to European capitals is clear: economic relationships will be transactional, not strategic, and military relationships will follow the same logic.
Macron warns of growing threats from China, Russia and the US, according to BBC, a formulation that would have been unthinkable from a major European leader even five years ago. French President Macron urges Europe to start acting like a world power, BBC reported, and Macron says Europe faces a "wake-up call," per the same outlet. The French president's rhetoric suggests at least some European leaders understand the magnitude of the shift.
The Diplomatic Contradiction
Matthew Whitaker, the US ambassador to NATO, has offered a counternarrative to the strategic documents and policy actions. "That's the first thing I reject; we're trying to make Nato stronger," Whitaker told The Guardian. He elaborated: "We're trying to make Nato stronger, not to withdraw or reject Nato, but make it work like it was intended as an alliance of 32 strong and capable allies," according to The Guardian. The ambassador also acknowledged the difficulty of responding to the administration's communication style: "Responding to every single Truth Social or tweet by president Trump would be a full-time job," Whitaker stated, per The Guardian.
The gap between Whitaker's assurances and the NSS text creates interpretive challenges for European policymakers. The tension between diplomatic messaging and strategic documents suggests either internal disagreement within the administration or a deliberate good-cop-bad-cop approach designed to extract maximum concessions from nervous allies. European leaders gathering in Munich must determine which interpretation to credit.
The conference itself represents a test of whether European institutions can adapt to the new reality. More than 50 world leaders have been invited to the conference, Aol reported. The Munich Security Conference is being held this week with European security at a crossroads, per reporting on the event. What concrete commitments will emerge? Will nations like Spain, which has failed to meet the 2% threshold, announce accelerated defense spending? Will Germany and France coordinate on defense industrial policy? Will the Baltic states, most exposed to Russian aggression, receive binding security guarantees from European partners rather than American ones?
The Stakes for Populations on the Frontline
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is about to enter its fifth year, Aol reported. The war has demonstrated both the limits of European military capacity and the consequences of decades of underinvestment. European nations have provided substantial support to Ukraine, but the United States has been the indispensable partner, providing weapons systems and intelligence that European militaries could not match. If Washington pursues "uneven peace in Ukraine on terms favorable to Moscow," as Aol reported, European nations will face a choice between accepting Russian gains or developing the independent capacity to contest them.
The population figures Younger cited, 500 million Europeans versus 140 million Russians, suggest the resources exist for European self-defense. But resources and capacity are different things. Decades of relying on American power projection have left European militaries fragmented, undersupplied, and lacking the command structures for independent action. Building those capabilities will require not just money but political will, industrial coordination, and a fundamental shift in how European citizens think about their security. The Munich conference will reveal whether that shift has begun or whether European leaders remain in denial about the magnitude of the change.
Donald Trump made a state visit to the UK in 2025, according to reporting on his diplomatic activities. Britain spends just under 2.5% of GDP on defence, Aol noted, more than most European allies but still far below what the new security environment may require. The UK's position, outside the European Union but deeply integrated into European security through NATO and bilateral relationships, illustrates the complexity of building a post-American security architecture. Brexit complicated European defense coordination; the American withdrawal from its traditional role makes that coordination essential.
What Munich Must Decide
Wake-up calls only matter if the recipient actually wakes up. European leaders have heard warnings before, from American officials complaining about burden-sharing, from security analysts documenting capability gaps, from the evidence of Russian aggression in Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion in 2022. Each time, the response has been incremental adjustment rather than fundamental transformation.
European leaders must decide whether to accept the shift and build accordingly or to hope that American politics will reverse course and restore the old order.
The conference this week will produce communiqués, pledges, and expressions of concern. What it may not produce is the binding commitment to European strategic autonomy that the moment requires. NATO countries such as Spain have been failing to meet the minimum 2% of GDP on defence, Aol reported, and there is little indication that Spain or similarly positioned nations will announce dramatic increases. The gap between rhetoric and resources has defined European security policy for decades. The American withdrawal from its traditional role makes that gap potentially fatal.
Sir Alex Younger's formulation remains the essential question: can a continent of 500 million take responsibility for defending itself against a continent of 140 million without relying on a continent of 300 million that has signaled it is no longer interested in the job? The math suggests yes. The political will remains uncertain. The Munich Security Conference will not answer that question definitively, but it will reveal whether European leaders have begun to ask it seriously. After 77 years of American guarantees, Europe must determine whether it can stand on its own feet, as the NSS demands, or whether the post-war order will collapse not from external assault but from internal abandonment.