All is not quiet on the Western front

Japan Times

a day ago

U.S. President Donald Trump's acquiescence to Russian President Vladimir Putin at last Friday's Alaska summit is further evidence that the U.S. and its NATO partners are drifting further apart with each passing month.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte heralded last month's agreement among Western allies to invest 5% of gross domestic product in defense — a longtime demand by Trump — as a ' big success .' But with Russia's bloody assault on Ukraine continuing and the U.S. still in many ways an unreliable partner, the long-term future of the alliance remains in question.
'The Western world as we knew it no longer exists.' That was the stark assessment of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in an interview with a German newspaper in April. A major turning point came on Feb. 14 — just weeks after Trump began his second term — when U.S. Vice President JD Vance addressed the Munich Security Conference. In his speech, Vance stated that 'the threat to Europe is not external actors like China or Russia, but internal ones — nations drifting away from the fundamental values we share.' He singled out Germany and the United Kingdom, claiming they no longer upheld freedom of speech and were thus diverging from the United States. In particular, he criticized Germany's political exclusion of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), arguing that even the voices of its supporters deserved a hearing.
This rhetoric — marked by direct criticism of European democracies — reflects a wider ideological shift and growing fracture in transatlantic relations. Trust in American leadership is eroding, and momentum is building in Europe for greater 'strategic autonomy.' So it's worth asking: Is the Western world, as von der Leyen suggests, truly unraveling? And how should U.S. allies respond to Trump's second, less-restrained presidency?
Central to understanding the Trump administration's posture toward Europe is its ideological opposition to liberalism. This critique contends that liberal norms themselves are responsible for many of the political and social dysfunctions in both the U.S. and its allies.
A key influence on this worldview is Patrick Deneen, a political theorist at the University of Notre Dame and reportedly a close intellectual adviser to Vice President Vance. In his book "Why Liberalism Failed," Deneen writes that 'liberal states have expanded to control nearly every aspect of life,' while citizens increasingly view their governments as remote and unaccountable. In his 2023 book "Regime Change," he calls for a peaceful overthrow of the 'corrupt liberal ruling class' and the construction of a 'post-liberal' political order.
While Trump often appears driven by transactional instincts more than ideology, Vance embraces a firmer intellectual foundation. His alignment with post-liberal thinkers helps explain why the administration has adopted an adversarial stance toward Europe's mainstream political values.
Indeed, Trump and Vance share elements of the anti-liberal critiques espoused by Putin, who champions traditionalist conservatism, as well as by far-right parties across Europe. These leaders see European efforts to promote progressive ideals — particularly around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) — as misguided. Upon taking office on Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order to abolish what he called 'extreme and wasteful DEI programs and preferences' within the federal government, reversing key Biden-era policies. The administration has since urged European corporations to follow suit. In response, European governments have voiced strong opposition, deepening the ideological rift between Washington and its allies.
These developments have shaken European confidence in America's role as a reliable security partner. According to an April 29 survey conducted by Ukraine's New Europe Center, 89% of Ukrainians said they did not trust President Trump. Whether skeptical of U.S. engagement or still committed to the alliance, European leaders increasingly agree on the need for greater defense self-reliance.
Reflecting this consensus, the European Commission unveiled an €800 billion ($932 billion) defense investment initiative — the ReArm Europe Plan — on March 19. In a follow-up report titled Readiness 2030, the EU's European External Action Service called for rebuilding military readiness, reinforcing Europe's defense industrial base, and promoting a more autonomous European defense policy.
Europe, however, continues to trail far behind the U.S. in both defense technology and industrial capacity. That gap has grown more troubling amid Russia's expanding military threat, signs of reduced U.S. involvement in European security, and bilateral negotiations between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine — largely excluding European allies. The erosion of trust in U.S. leadership was further exacerbated by reports that the Trump administration might relinquish the post of NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, which has been held exclusively by Americans since the alliance was founded.
Within the Republican Party, calls to reconsider or even exit NATO are gaining traction. In June of last year, 46 Republican lawmakers supported an amendment to reduce NATO funding. In response, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned in an interview that Europe must 'prepare for the possibility that Mr. Trump may not uphold NATO's collective defense obligation unconditionally' and that European countries must 'do everything possible to ensure we can defend the continent on our own.'
In the short term, it is possible that these tensions could ease and transatlantic ties regain their former resilience. However, if Vance runs in the next election and wins, a more radical redefinition of America's global role may follow — including a possible withdrawal from NATO. The unity shown at last month's NATO summit and the European members' commitment to greater defense spending were welcome developments. But cultivating a strong European defense industrial base will take time. Regardless of political changes in Washington, Europe's need to accelerate its defense autonomy appears inescapable.
Yet there are doubts about whether Europe can succeed. First, despite some progress, European defense budgets and capabilities remain insufficient. Since the Cold War, Europe — as well as other U.S. allies such as Japan — have relied too heavily on U.S. security guarantees. Reducing this overdependence is now an urgent strategic task.
Second, history suggests that America's post-World War II engagement in global security is the exception rather than the norm. As Georgetown University professor Charles Kupchan argues in "Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World," isolationism has been the dominant tradition in U.S. foreign policy. The period from 1941 to Trump's first election in 2016 — during which the U.S. took on global security leadership — was a historical deviation. That exceptional era may now be ending.
It remains unclear what direction the Trump administration's alliance policy will ultimately take. What is clear, however, is that Europe must respond to the widening gap in military capabilities. But Europe's path to self-sufficiency is complicated. National strategies across the continent diverge. Far-right parties are gaining momentum, nationalism is intensifying and political fragmentation makes collective action difficult.
If Europe is to build credible autonomous defense capacity, it must show sustained political will, align national strategies, and rebuild trust with the U.S. through shared values. Only then can the transatlantic alliance regain its vitality.
At the same time, the rise of the Global South has disrupted the West's long-standing assumption that its values are universal. In this changing landscape, the West must rethink its global identity and role — not just in relation to the U.S. or Europe, but in a world where its primacy is no longer assured.
Yuichi Hosoya is the director of research at the Asia-Pacific Initiative and head of the Europe and Americas Group at the Institute of Geoeconomics. Geoeconomic Briefing is a series featuring researchers at the IOG focused on Japan's challenges in that field. It also provides analyses of the state of the world and trade risks, as well as technological and industrial structures.