Author: Thomas Limberger

“When truth finally walks in the door, people scream at the noise.” That, in essence, captured the mood across European newsrooms last week, as broadcasters from Berlin to Brussels erupted in synchronized indignation over Washington’s newly released 2025 National Security Strategy.

But the irritation says far more about Europe’s defensive denialism than it does about America’s revised posture. For the first time in decades, the U.S. is spelling out—bluntly, unapologetically, and in writing—what many Europeans, especially conservative Germans, have said “very softly” for years:

Europe’s immigration policies are unsustainable; its industrial backbone is eroding under green-socialist dogma that has migrated into mainstream public opinion; its political class is censorious and risk-averse; and its Russia policy has become an emotional performance rather than a strategic pursuit of peace.

And that is precisely what stunned European commentators. They did not misread Washington’s message—they simply disliked how accurately it described their reality.

A Mirror Europe Doesn’t Want to Look Into

From the very first pages, the U.S. strategy identifies issues that Europeans hear daily yet refuse to confront.

The White House declares the era of mass migration “over”, calling uncontrolled flows a fundamental threat to national sovereignty and social cohesion. That stands in sharp contrast to Germany’s post-2015 commitments, which continue to stress moral obligation over national interest. The strategy bluntly frames migration as a destabilizer that must be stopped, not managed.

Then comes the real sting: an explicit critique of Europe’s green-driven deindustrialization. The strategy warns that “national and transnational regulations undermine creativity and industriousness,” eroding Europe’s global competitiveness as its share of world GDP falls from 25% in 1990 to 14% today.

This is precisely the argument conservative German thinkers—from Mittelstand CEOs to economists at ifo—have raised for years: that Berlin’s energy transition has outpaced economic logic and that the Scholz government’s climate orthodoxy has accelerated industrial decline.

In other words, Washington has finally put in writing what Europe has refused to admit publicly.

A U.S. Pivot Toward Strategic Realism—Not European Idealism

Perhaps the sharpest divergence between Washington and Brussels lies in Russia policy.

Europe’s political elites—especially in Berlin, Brussels, and parts of Scandinavia—maintain that the conflict must be prolonged “until Russia is defeated,” regardless of economic or societal cost. But the U.S. strategy explicitly rejects this open-ended commitment and calls instead for “an expeditious cessation of hostilities”to prevent escalation, stabilize economies, and restore strategic balance.

The document goes further:

• It describes Europe’s approach to Russia as “unrealistic,”
• warns that European governments are suppressing domestic calls for peace,
• and stresses that the U.S. “cannot bear the cost” of an indefinite European war posture.

 

This shift is not isolationism—it’s strategic adulthood. Deterrence remains; ideological crusades do not. The term the document implicitly revives is detente: principled competition without permanent escalation.

This stands in sharp contrast to the EU’s tendency toward maximalist rhetoric divorced from military or economic capacity.

Burden-Sharing Becomes Burden-Shifting

Europe’s second shock came from Washington’s refreshing candor: the U.S. will no longer underwrite Europe’s security in perpetuity.

The document states unequivocally: “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.”

Instead, NATO members must meet new commitments of 5% of GDP for defense—a far cry from Germany’s years of unmet promises at 2%. And Europe must take “primary responsibility” for its region before expecting American lifelines.

This is not abandonment. It is accountability. America is no longer willing to subsidize European complacency.

A Candid Assessment of Europe’s Civilizational Drift

The sections on Europe’s deeper struggles hit even harder:

• Migration policies that “transform the continent and create strife.”
• Suppression of political opposition and free speech.
• Cratering birth rates and loss of cultural self-confidence.
• Risk of “civilizational erasure” within decades.

 

No European official would dare write such sentences. Yet many European citizens—especially in Germany, Italy, and France—would nod in agreement.

The message is unmistakable: If Europe wishes to remain Europe, it must reclaim its identity, rebuild its industrial core, and abandon its fixation on punitive regulation and ideological governance.

America’s Strategy Is Not Retreat—It Is Renaissance

Contrary to the panic emanating from European news pundits, the National Security Strategy is not a retreat from global leadership. It is a reassertion of it.

The document lays out a vision of American strength built on:

• domestic reindustrialization,
• energy dominance,
• technological superiority,
• restored borders,
• and a recalibrated foreign policy grounded in interest, not inertia.

 

This is the strategic posture of a superpower that intends not merely to participate in the 21st century—but to shape it.

The message to Europe is firm but fair: America will lead, but Europe must stand.

A New Equation in Global Power

With Asia’s rise, Middle Eastern stabilization, and America’s renewed industrial and military footing, Washington is crafting a world in which the United States remains the indispensable architect of global order—but no longer the sole financier.

The President’s strategy is not confrontation. It is not retreat. It is not nostalgia.

It is restoration—a deliberate reconstruction of American strength as a stabilizing force in a fragmented world. For Europe, the message is uncomfortable because it is true:

The transatlantic partnership will endure, but the era of American indulgence is over.

The Bottom Line

Washington’s new strategy is not a shift—it is a correction.

It aligns with the realities many Europeans whisper about but few dare say aloud: Europe is in a moment of profound strategic, cultural, and industrial weakness. The United States, by contrast, is choosing clarity over ambiguity and strategy over sentiment.

And that is why European commentators are agitated. For once, America is not reflecting Europe’s worldview. It is reflecting Europe’s condition. The President’s open communication is not a provocation. It is a sign of strength—and of leadership—at a moment when the free world desperately needs both.