Trump’s showdown with Europe is reshaping alliances and helping Putin
Trump’s National Security Strategy and recent actions have widened the transatlantic rift. The main beneficiary is Vladimir Putin.
Copy link
By Torontoer Staff
Donald Trump’s recent policies and the 2025 National Security Strategy have deepened a rupture between the United States and its European partners. The document reframes U.S. priorities, treats some European governments as problematic, and praises far-right parties that align with Moscow. The net effect is a weaker, less predictable transatlantic alliance.
European leaders are responding with cautious diplomacy and public hedging. The result is a patchwork of commitments that leaves Ukraine and other frontline states with less clarity about who will step in if deterrence fails.
How the new U.S. posture departs from past practice
The National Security Strategy released in late 2025 elevates U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and explicitly criticizes European political trends. It frames Europe as drifting toward censorship, shrinking populations and fragile sovereignty, and calls for cultivating political resistance to that trajectory. The strategy contains no sustained prescription for Russia, and it celebrates nationalistic parties that often share ties with Moscow.
Trump’s recent operational choices, including a forceful intervention in Venezuela and repeated threats over Greenland, have sent a message that Washington may act unilaterally. Those moves were followed by administrative changes, personnel turnover in security institutions, and a rhetorical shift that treats allied commitments as conditional rather than absolute.
Why the old assumptions about NATO no longer hold
NATO’s Article 5 has long been presented as a mutual defence guarantee. The treaty’s language, however, allows each member to take 'such action as it deems necessary,' which leaves room for inaction. That legal ambiguity has mattered more in the current political climate, where Washington’s willingness to back European-led security initiatives is uncertain.
'You people in Europe really don't get it. Do you? This nuclear umbrella that you're talking about. You think it's designed to give you shelter while the nukes pass overhead between Moscow and Washington. But we look at it in a different way,'
Admiral Stansfield Turner, former CIA director
That anecdote, from a former U.S. intelligence chief, illustrates a blunt reality: alliances depend on political will as much as legal language. When leaders doubt that will, deterrence frays.
Who stands to gain
Russia benefits directly from divisions inside NATO and from warming ties between the Trump administration and European far-right actors that Moscow already cultivates. Kremlin strategists see a U.S. president willing to undercut collective European positions as a strategic windfall.
'If Mr. Trump can further dent Europe’s unity by backing the far right, then a lot of Russia’s objectives will have been achieved without further effort.'
Analysis from transatlantic observers
Russian state media has openly welcomed elements of the U.S. strategy. The alignment on certain issues, even when tactical, reduces pressure on Moscow to change course in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Immediate consequences for Europe and Ukraine
European governments are recalibrating. Some leaders are cautious in public statements, seeking to avoid direct confrontation with Washington while preserving legal and diplomatic norms. Others have pushed for multinational security guarantees for Ukraine, but those plans remain imprecise and under-resourced.
'The President had simply shown his allies on the continent the middle finger,'
Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. forces in Europe
Operationally, the shift has delayed or limited supplies of certain long-range weapons to Kyiv, and it has complicated plans for multinational security deployments. That gap in capability matters on the battlefield and in deterrence calculations.
- Erosion of predictable U.S. backing weakens NATO’s deterrent effect
- Far-right movements in Europe may receive political and financial support
- Ukraine faces uncertainty about long-term security guarantees
- Russia can exploit divisions to advance hybrid and conventional campaigns
What Europe can do next
European states have limited options, but they are not powerless. Steps include deepening defence cooperation within the EU and NATO, clarifying rules for rapid responses, investing in resilient supply chains for critical weapons, and preserving diplomatic backchannels with Moscow to reduce escalation risk.
Intelligence and military officials have been signalling the danger for months. In London, the head of MI6 warned of Kremlin activity that is 'just below the threshold of war.' NATO chief Mark Rutte has said Europe is 'already in harm’s way.' These are practical warnings that require political follow-through.
Conclusion
The transatlantic rupture is a strategic reality with immediate consequences for European security and for countries caught between competing powers. If alliances are to remain meaningful, European leaders will need clearer commitments, better coordination, and a readiness to shore up deterrence without assuming Washington’s default support. For now, Vladimir Putin is the actor most likely to benefit from the growing uncertainty.
TrumpNATOEuropeRussiaNational Security StrategyUkraine
