WHAT HAPPENED: How the 45th and 47th U.S. President Donald Trump has shake up the world order and left Europe’s leaders in confusion

This is the most serious and long-lasting danger to Western security since the end of World War II. “Trumpism will last longer than his presidency,” according to one analyst. But who is prepared to lead when the United States remains in the background?

To make them stand out, Lord Inverchapel, the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., entered the State Department at 9:00 a.m. in February 1947 and delivered two diplomatic notes to US Secretary of State George Marshall on blue paper. Greece was the subject of one, and Turkey of the other.

Britain informed the US that it was too exhausted, broke, and heavily indebted to the US to continue supporting Greek government forces in their fight against an armed Communist insurgency. Britain has already stated that it would relax its stance in Egypt and withdraw from Palestine and India.

The United States immediately realised that Greece had a genuine risk of caving in to the Communists and, consequently, the Soviet Union. Additionally, the United States feared that if Greece left, Turkey would follow, allowing Moscow to control the Eastern Mediterranean and possibly even the Suez Canal, a vital global trade route.

“The United States must have a policy of assisting free peoples who are fending off attempts to subjugate them by armed minorities or external pressure,” he stated.

It served as the precursor to the Truman Doctrine. Its central tenet was that the United States should play a role in defending democracy abroad.

The Marshall Plan, which greatly aided Europe’s damaged economies, and the establishment of NATO in 1949 to shield governments from the Soviet Union, which had now seized control of eastern Europe, were two crucial actions the US made after the war.

One could argue that the United States replaced Britain as the dominant force in the western world at this period. It was more like to the instant that demonstrated that it had already.

The United States led the free world following World War II. It felt protected because of its two vast seas, but it had always been an insular nation. America utilised its influence to alter many aspects of the world to suit its own purposes in the decades following World War II.

The baby boomer generation grew up in a world that was more like the US than it had ever been. Additionally, it seized control of the defence, culture, and economy of the western world.

However, it appears that the fundamental principles upon which the United States has been basing its geostrategic objectives may soon be abandoned.

When the British left virtually overnight, the United States stepped in to fill the hole.

Since World War II, Trump has been the first American president to challenge the position that his nation decided upon for itself. This gives the impression to many that the previous global order is no longer in place and that the new one has not yet started to take shape.

Which nation will be the first to take action? More pressure is being placed on Europe’s security than at any other point in nearly living memory. Can Europe’s leaders, who are currently struggling, find a workable solution?

A danger to Truman’s legacy
Trump has always criticised the global order, dating back to 1945. He criticised the US’s role in defending liberties around the world about 40 years ago by purchasing full-page advertisements in three US newspapers.

In 1987, he declared, “Japan and other countries have been exploiting the United States for decades.” “In order to safeguard their own interests, why don’t these nations reimburse the US for the lives lost and the billions of dollars lost?”

“As we defend ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, bound for allies who won’t help, the world is laughing at American politicians.”

Since his second inauguration, he has been in this position.

Some members of his administration are upset because they believe that Europe depends too much on the United States. They appear to be furious, as evidenced by the messages leaked this week over airstrikes on Houthis in Yemen.

Someone who has the handle In the texts, Vice-President JD Vance stated that the strikes may benefit European nations. “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” it said.

Another account, this one from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, responded three minutes later with the following: “VP: I completely share your loathing of European free-loading.” It is HEARTLESS.

Trump’s stance appears to extend beyond disparaging those he believes are abusing the US’s generosity. He appeared to greet Russian President Vladimir Putin with open arms at the beginning of his second term. He informed Russia that Ukraine should not expect to regain the territory it lost to Russia and that it would not be admitted to NATO.

Before the negotiations even started, many people believed that this was giving away two significant bargaining chips. It appears that he made no reciprocal requests to Russia.

However, Putin is viewed by some Trump supporters as a capable leader who shares many of their conservative beliefs.

Some people view Putin as a comrade in the “war on woke.”

The United States’ culture conflicts now influence at least some of its foreign policy. The safety of Europe is at the centre of a conflict between two diametrically opposed and antagonistic ideologies on the values of the United States.

Some believe that Europe cannot wait for Trump to leave office since the dispute goes beyond his personal beliefs.

“The United States is growing increasingly disconnected from European values,” argues Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London. “The fact that it’s structural, cultural, and possibly long-term makes it hard for Europeans to accept.”

“I think the current state of affairs in the United States will endure longer than Trump himself.” Trumpism, in my opinion, will endure beyond his administration.

“Is on life support” is NATO’s fifth article.
According to the Trump White House, European nations should finance and manage their own defence since it will no longer be the primary defender of European security.

“If NATO nations don’t pay, I won’t defend them.” The president declared this month that he would not protect them.

For nearly eight decades, European security has been based on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It asserts that an attack on one state in the alliance is an attack on all of them.

Just before he left for the White House last month, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and I spoke in Downing Street. He informed me that Trump personally remained committed to Article 5 and that he was pleased that the United States was still NATO’s most important member.

Not everyone is certain.

Ben Wallace, the former Conservative government’s military minister, informed me at the start of the month that he believed Article 5 was on life support.

The UK and other European nations must take this seriously, invest heavily in security, and step up. If they don’t, Article 5 and NATO may be terminated.

“At this time, I would not bet my house on the possibility of Article 5 being used in the event of a Russian attack.” I would never assume that the United States will automatically intervene and provide assistance.

Nearly three-quarters of French people do not think that the United States is a friend of France, according to a poll conducted by the French business Institut Elabe. The vast majority of people in Denmark and Britain, two nations that once backed the US, now oppose it.

Long-time Trump opponent Robert Kagan, a conservative author, researcher, and senior scholar at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC, believes, “The harm Trump has caused to NATO is likely irreversible.”

“To put it mildly, the alliance depended on an American guarantee that is no longer dependable.”

In any case, Trump is not the first American president to advocate for increased defence spending in Europe. Barack Obama advised NATO allies in 2016 to strengthen their defences because “Europe has sometimes been complacent about its own defence.”

Has the West started to “fragment”?
All of this is fantastic for Putin. He claimed that “the entire Euro-Atlantic security system is collapsing before our eyes.” “Europe is losing its international agency and cultural identity, becoming marginalised in the global economic development, and being thrown into the tangle of problems like migration.”

“The West has begun to break up,” a Kremlin spokesperson stated early in March, three days after Volodymyr Zelensky’s disastrous meeting with Trump and Vance in the White House.

“Look at what Russia wants to do in Europe,” says Armida van Rij, head of Chatham House’s Europe program. “Its objective is to reduce the stability of Europe.” The intention is to harm NATO and force the United States to withdraw its troops from this region.

At this moment, one could say, “Tick, tick, and almost tick.” because it weakens the stability of Europe. It weakens NATO. Although we still haven’t succeeded in persuading the US to withdraw its soldiers from Europe, who can predict where we’ll be in a few months?

“We lost sight of what our past taught us.”
Europe is going through a very difficult period as it must choose how to adequately defend itself. Many European nations are vulnerable to attack because they have relied on American might for eight decades.

Britain is one nation that has reduced its defence budget by nearly 70% since the Cold War’s peak. Europe received a peace dividend with the conclusion of the Cold War in the early 1990s, and it began reducing defence expenditures that would continue for decades.

He claims, “We took a peace dividend and had a large budget [during the Cold War].” One could argue that their actions were morally correct.

“We went from a peace dividend to robbing businesses, which is what is wrong.” Nowadays, many turn to the defence industry for financial support. And it was there that we lost sight of what our history had taught us.

The prime minister informed lawmakers last month that Britain would increase its defence spending from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027. But is that sufficient?

“Simply standing motionless is insufficient,” Wallace asserts. “If the Americans left, it wouldn’t be enough to fill the gaps and fix the things we need to make ourselves more deployable.”

The larger problem of recruiting people to the military comes next. He asserts that “the West is in freefall in its military recruiting, not just Britain.”

There are currently no younger users of the service. That is a concern for us.

However, Germany’s soon-to-be chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has stated that Europe must separate from the United States. A European military-industrial complex that can offer services that are currently only offered in the US must be established in order to “Europeanize” NATO.

While many people believe that Europe has to increase its military independence, some are concerned that this is not the case for all Europeans.

“The majority of people in East Europe don’t need to hear the message right now,” says Ian Bond, deputy chairman of the Centre for European Reform. “Until you reach Spain and Italy, it gets more problematic the further west you go.”

“The consensus in Europe right now is that this isn’t really a debate anymore, but rather a debate about how we do it and possibly how quickly we do it, but we need to do this now,” Arnold concurs.

establishing a new global order
Timothy Garton Ash, a historian, claims that the United States is the only nation that currently provides a select few “very important things”.

He notes, “These are the so-called strategic enablers.” Russian ballistic missiles can only be shot down by Patriot air defence systems. They use satellites and information collection to accomplish this. Within three to five years, we should aim to have our own versions of these outside of the US.

Even if an American president says, “Leave us out of this,” the goal is that throughout this transition from the American-led NATO, you would have a NATO that is so Europeanized that its troops, along with national forces and EU competences, can defend Europe.

How to accomplish this is the question.

Although she thinks it will be difficult, Ms. van Rij says she thinks Europe has to establish a European defence industrial base that is owned by Europe.

“The disagreements in Europe about whether or not to actually do this and how to do it are what are really challenging.”

The European Commission and other specialists have been attempting to determine how this protection might operate for the past few decades. “Historically, powerful national interests have made it extremely difficult. Therefore, it won’t be simple.

Trump has so far shown prepared to overthrow the post-Cold War rules-based international order. Sovereign states have the freedom to select their own alliances and paths in this sequence.

He appears to share Vladimir Putin’s desire for a future in which powerful nations can dominate weaker nations without being bound by international law. Russia did this during the Tsarist and Soviet Empires. That would entail returning to the “spheres of interest” framework that was established forty years following World War II.

We honestly don’t know what Donald Trump would do in the event that a NATO nation was attacked. However, we can no longer take the US’s offer of assistance for granted. The European Union must take action. Its goal appears to be to remain united, at last finance its own defence, and avoid falling under any of the major nations’ “spheres of influence.”