Has America first become America alone?

Gulf Today

28-02-2025

Article 5 of the NATO treaty is the bedrock of the alliance: It is the pledge that an attack on one is an attack on all. It created a single security space among the democratic nations in North America and Europe. The concept of a one-for-all, indivisible security across the North Atlantic has been remarkably successful in deterring attacks against NATO members. While the US created the alliance in 1949 primarily to protect Europe from aggression, Article 5 has been invoked only once, to respond to aggression against the US. On Sept. 12, 2001, Canada and our European allies pledged to support us after the Sept. 11 attacks by al-Qaeda. The allies followed words with action, setting up a joint International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. All 32 NATO allies contributed to ISAF. Nearly 1,300 Canadian and European soldiers, along with more than 2,400 Americans, gave their lives in the wake of an attack against the American homeland.
On Feb. 12, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a deadly blow to this American commitment to the common security space — and signaled the end of US leadership in facing common security challenges. In a meeting with allies in Brussels, he announced that 'stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.' Bowing preemptively to Russian demands, he also said Ukrainian membership in NATO was 'not a realistic outcome,' and he ruled out US involvement in a post-conflict peacekeeping force in Ukraine. Hegseth's gut punch to our allies was followed hours later by President Donald Trump's news that the US would begin to negotiate with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine, without the participation of European or even Ukrainian representatives.
This one-two punch was followed days later by a scolding speech by Vice President JD Vance. He told European leaders in Munich that the biggest threats they faced were not Russia or China, but their own democratic failures. Trump piled on more offensive rhetoric, calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a ' dictator' who has done a 'terrible job.' He even suggested that Ukraine, not Russia, was at fault for starting the war. The message could not be clearer to our friends and allies in Europe — after 75 years of shared security, you're on your own.
The immediate victim of this policy reversal is Ukraine. Trump wants the war to end, but Ukraine will not enjoy lasting peace without guarantees against further Russian aggression, and our allies know that any security guarantee without the US will be a dead letter. At present, only America's unique military and intelligence capabilities will deter Russia from further aggression. Washington has for decades urged Europeans to build more modern and lethal armed forces, and recent events will no doubt accelerate their efforts. But it will probably take years.
Until now, US presidents have always recognised that we gain much with a stake in European security, even as we have spent more. Especially in the event of a conflict, we will need to be able to share intelligence and be interoperable with the world's most advanced militaries and have ready access to forward operating bases, etc. Before this administration, no senior American official would have suggested that the US should take anything but a leadership role in facing a major threat — let alone the greatest land war on the European continent since World War II. Nor would any American official dare suggest publicly that any outside undemocratic power — let alone Russia — could veto a country's membership in NATO. And no US president has ever blamed the victim for an unprovoked invasion, while not breathing a word of criticism for the brutal aggressor.
This abrupt end to an effective security arrangement was simply announced, without any process or input from stakeholders. Before initiating changes in security policies, previous administrations would hold discussions inside the interagency community, consult with Congress in hearings and then brief the allies. Trump dispensed with all that. He didn't even give a heads-up to Ukraine and NATO allies that he was calling Putin. And so here we are. We told Europe in effect we won't be there for them as they face a grave military challenge. When the chips were down for us in September 2001, they were there. Will they rise to the occasion when the need arises again? Or will they say, as Hegseth did, that 'stark strategic realties' prevent them from doing so? Has 'America first' become America alone?