🔗 Share this article

Since the mid-20th century, the partnership across the Atlantic was grounded in a common promise to mutual security and a shared principles upholding popular rule, individual liberties, and the rule of law.

That foundational period was set in motion in 1947 during a historic speech by US President Truman, who committed American support to defend Europe from continued aggression by the Soviet Union.

The United States led the creation of NATO, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and the world body. It integrated itself into what later became known as the "framework of international law", a system where countries committed to shared responsibilities designed to shield liberal democracies from adversarial dictatorships.

Currently, the latest US security doctrine, released in the final month of the year, signals that, from the administration's perspective, that common project has concluded; much of what the world expected from Washington's international part is finished.

The strategy discusses the "purported 'rules-based international order'", enclosing the latter phrase in scare quotes: a form of dismissal through punctuation.

A Shift in Doctrine

Vice-President JD Vance alerted America's European allies of this coming change during a presentation at the Munich conference in early 2025.

"He asserted plainly that the genuine danger to Europe was not emanating from Russia but from within - from those restricting expression, quashing dissent and thereby weakening European democracy," he argued. He was severely damning of the "cosmopolitan elite."

A prominent French newspaper described the address as a declaration of "ideological war" against Europe.

Last month's NSS formally incorporates Vance's observations, transforming them from speech into stated policy.

"Undoubtedly America is not anymore the country that promoted the international norms that have been dominant since the conclusion of WWII," states a former senior official from the US State Department and a think tank. "It is transitioning to a very different place."

Therefore, if the world is indeed moving away from that post-war framework, what is it evolving into? And what are the ramifications for the global community, and specifically for Europe?

''Today's Reality is Distinct'

"Multilateral organizations, especially the world body, have been plagued by pronounced hostility toward the US, and have been ineffective for our or any other particular purpose," argues a vice-president at a influential conservative policy institute.

From her perspective - a former senior security advisor to the former President - evolution to the global system is certain in a dynamic global environment.

"Another key point we face is that when that much-discussed post-war framework was created after the Second World War, 80 short years ago, China was not a primary focus. We are living in a different world today."

This system of international law, forged in the aftermath the global conflict, was the legacy of a generation that had witnessed the horrors of imperial competition and was intent to stop its recurrence.

That global architecture, flawed and incomplete though it certainly had been, was the outcome of that collective experience.

Yet, the NSS contends that American strategy became misguided in the subsequent decades - and it places blame on what it calls "American foreign policy elites."

"They lashed American policy to a array of international institutions, some of which are fueled by explicit opposition to America and many by a transnationalism that openly aims to dissolve individual state sovereignty," it says.

It indicates that in the future, the US will seek to curtail the reach of supranational bodies.

The Primacy of the Nation-State

"The basic building block of global politics is and will remain the nation-state… We stand for the independent authority of nations, against the authority-undermining intrusions of the most invasive global bodies…"

Elsewhere in the document, reflecting on the "balance of power", it states: "The disproportionate power of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a permanent feature of world politics."

Russian leadership commented on the review with endorsement, stating that much of it was consistent with Moscow's own thinking.

"I think the leaders of the US, China, and Russia and their like-minded allies are seeking to usher in a return to an era of spheres of influence," observes a former head of the British military.

However, a leading academic in strategic studies believes the new Security Strategy is not such a fundamental shift with the past as it could be interpreted.

"We need to be careful about the rules-based international order, which is a phrase that gained widespread currency in the last decade or so," he suggests. "Consider the past and you find numerous breaches of the rules, the Vietnam War for example. So there's a sort of rosy glow about the past at times and everyone should be wary of nostalgia for what was a multifaceted era."

A Forceful Return of Sovereign Power

America's military operation in the capital of Venezuela that led to the detention of the country's leader Nicolas Maduro is an early example of this robust demonstration of independent action.

A number of legal scholars have questioned the legality of the government's operation, arguing it may have breached international statutes governing the military intervention.

American officials argue its actions were legally justified.

"Based on domestic legislation it certainly was [legal]," a former Undersecretary of Defense has stated. "The Venezuelan leader - most of our European partners have not accepted his authority so he is an usurper. Because of that he is stripped of the standard safeguards that sovereigns would have...given national statutes that exist in the United States, that would take precedence over anything the UN says."

The NSS declares, for the United States, the right to be the dominant force in the Americas, and to persuade its regional partners into conformity with Washington's interests.

This is a powerful reaffirmation of the