🔗 Share this article

Over eighty years, the transatlantic bond was grounded in a mutual pledge to collective defense and a common set of values centered on democracy, fundamental freedoms, and the legal order.

That defining era was set in motion in March 1947 during a brief speech by Truman, who pledged American support to protect Europe from further expansion by the Soviet Union.

The United States spearheaded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the IMF, and the UN. It embedded itself into what later became known as the "framework of international law", a system where countries agreed to shared responsibilities designed to shield democratic societies from adversarial dictatorships.

Now, the latest US National Security Strategy (NSS), issued in the final month of the year, signals that, from the Washington's perspective, that common project has concluded; much of what the world assumed about America's role is over.

The document discusses the "so-called 'rules-based international order'", putting the latter phrase in inverted commas: a form of dismissal through punctuation.

An Ideological Turn

Second-in-command JD Vance cautioned America's European allies of this impending shift during a presentation at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025.

"He told them directly that the genuine danger to Europe was not emanating from Russia but from within - from those censoring free speech, quashing dissent and thereby undermining European democracy," the speech noted. He was sharply condemnatory of the "cosmopolitan elite."

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

The recent NSS formally incorporates Vance's remarks, transforming them from speech into stated policy.

"Undoubtedly America is not the country that promoted the universal principles that have been established since the post-1945 era," notes a previous high-ranking figure from the American diplomatic corps and a policy institute. "It is shifting to a very different place."

So, if the world is indeed abandoning that post-war framework, what is it moving towards? And what are the implications for the rest of the world, and in particular for Europe?

''Today's Reality is Distinct'

"Multilateral organizations, especially the United Nations, have been characterized by pronounced hostility toward the US, and have not served our or any other particular purpose," contends a analyst at a Washington-based advocacy group.

According to her analysis - a former top aide to the former President - transformation to the world order is inevitable in a world in flux.

"Another key point we face is that when that aforementioned rules-based international order was formed after the WWII, merely eighty years back, China was not a primary focus. We just have a new reality."

This system of international law, built in the wake the Second World War, was the creation of a generation that had lived through the devastation of major power rivalry and was resolved to prevent its recurrence.

That global architecture, flawed and incomplete though it undoubtedly was, was the legacy of that collective experience.

But, the NSS explicitly states that Washington's approach went astray in the subsequent decades - and it places blame on what it calls "American foreign policy elites."

"They tied American policy to a network of global organizations, some of which are fueled by outright anti-Americanism and many by a transnationalism that explicitly seeks to erode national sovereignty," the document states.

It indicates that going forward, the US will seek to reduce the influence of global institutions.

A Return to National Power

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

Elsewhere in the document, reflecting on the "distribution of global influence", it states: "The disproportionate power of major powers is a enduring reality of global affairs."

Moscow reacted to the review with praise, stating that much of it matched Moscow's own viewpoint.

"I believe Trump, Xi, Putin and their like-minded allies are seeking to revert to an era of spheres of influence," argues a retired leader of the British military.

Yet, a renowned professor in international security believes the new Security Strategy is not such a fundamental shift with the past as it could be interpreted.

"We must be cautious about the rules-based international order, which is a expression that came into general use in the recent past," he contends. "Look back and you find plenty of violations of the rules, Southeast Asian conflicts for example. So there's a sort of rosy glow about the past at times and everyone should be careful about sentimentality for what was a complicated history."

A Muscular Reassertion of Sovereign Power

America's armed intervention in the Venezuelan capital Caracas that led to the apprehension of the country's leader Nicolas Maduro is an preliminary case of this robust demonstration of independent action.

Several international law experts have questioned the legality of the government's operation, arguing it may have contravened global laws governing the military intervention.

American officials argue its actions were permissible under law.

"According to US statute it certainly was [legal]," a previous senior Pentagon official has stated. "Maduro - most of our allies in Europe have not recognised his regime so he is an illegitimate figure. Because of that he is deprived of the usual immunities that national leaders would have...particularly when we are looking at constitutional provisions that exist in the United States, that would override anything the UN says."

The NSS asserts, for the United States, the right to be the leading nation in the Americas, and to encourage its hemispheric neighbors into conformity with Washington's interests.

This is a forceful revival of the