“The end of utopian idealism; time for hard, pure realism”
On December 5th, the American administration published a document that made a great deal of noise, entitled “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” While it occupied the media for its considerations regarding Europe, this text deserves to be examined through the axes and priorities it has chosen, its consequences, and its ambiguities. In the introduction to this strategy, the American president signs a laudatory assessment of his action, in which nothing seems to have failed (yet, if one considers only the “eight violent conflicts” that he claims to have resolved, the resumption of fighting between Cambodia and Thailand, or the conflict in eastern DRC that persists, contradict his success). He then explains that “This document is a roadmap intended to ensure that America remains the greatest and most prosperous nation in the history of humanity, as well as the cradle of liberty on earth.” The American president, who is abundantly quoted in the text, openly assumes from the outset a form of “imperial nationalism.”
What are the points to remember, among the many addressed in this document?
Choosing and prioritizing
The American administration no longer claims to “embrace everything and hold nothing well” and to burden itself with ideologies like, according to it, previous ones. It wants to answer the question “What do we want?”, and, from there, choose its priorities, define the means in coherence, and act with a “flexible realism” for a single objective “The protection of vital and fundamental national interests” and ensure that “the United States remains the strongest, richest, most powerful and most prosperous country in the world for the decades to come.” The pragmatism of a simple credo: “America first.”
This pragmatism led the Trump administration to cut most humanitarian funding at the beginning of 2025, by applying in advance the terms of this national security strategy: “To focus and establish priorities is to make choices, it is to recognize that everything does not have the same importance for everyone. This does not mean, however, that certain peoples, certain regions or certain countries are intrinsically unimportant. The United States is in every respect the most generous nation in history, but we cannot afford to give the same attention to all regions and all problems of the world.” Upon reflection, is the reduction in humanitarian funding begun in many countries before the American decision not also an undeclared translation of this same type of choice?
A hegemony that says it does not want to dominate the world… nor change differences
“After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that the permanent domination of the United States over the rest of the world was in the best interest of our country. Yet the affairs of other countries concern us only if their activities directly threaten our interests”; no more domination? But an overwhelming military, economic and technological power allowing American supremacy until the end of the century… An affirmed use of the “unmatched soft power of the United States” which allows the USA to exercise “a positive influence throughout the world that serves our interests” but “while respecting the religions, cultures and different systems of governance of other countries.” Elsewhere: “…this will require abandoning the misguided American experiment of harassing these countries, particularly the Gulf monarchies, to make them abandon their traditions and historical forms of government. We should encourage and applaud reforms when they emerge spontaneously, without trying to impose them from the outside.” Ambiguities? Rather “flexible realism”: letting “non-liberal” regimes function if their interests converge with those of the United States. No more “regime change” dear to the neoconservatives of the 1990s–2000s… But one also understands that this recognition of the diversity of States and civilizations makes it possible to legitimize the recognition and defense of the “civilizational” values of America and the West.
The nation-state before international bodies
Beyond that, the strategy affirms a preeminence without nuance – and a return – of the nation-state: “The fundamental political unit of the world is and will remain the nation-state. It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and protect their sovereignty. The world works better when nations give priority to their interests. The United States will put its own interests first and, in its relations with other nations, will encourage them to do the same. We defend the sovereign rights of nations, we oppose the incursions of the most intrusive transnational organizations that undermine sovereignty, and we support the reform of these institutions so that they rather promote than hinder individual sovereignty and serve American interests.” In a world that has become multipolar again, the USA abandons the multilateral in favor of bilateral relations… From a position of strength.
The era of mass immigration is over
Unsurprisingly, the American administration engraves in marble its policy of “stopping” the reception of migratory flows, and above all warns: “In all countries of the world, mass migration has severely strained national resources, increased violence and crime, weakened social cohesion, distorted labor markets and compromised national security. The era of mass immigration must come to an end.” What outcome for the “Caminantes” of Latin America?
Atlas no longer wants to carry the world
“The era when the United States alone supported the world order like Atlas is over.” It is clear; consequences? The transfer of burden to allies, and notably NATO countries, which are asked to devote 5% of their GDP to defense. Beyond that, to favor “targeted partnerships that use economic tools to align incentives, share burdens with like-minded allies.” Atlas carries less but remains at the helm… and occasionally uses the weapon of tariffs to stimulate good will.
The Monroe[1]challenged by the Trump corollary
“…the United States will reaffirm and apply the Monroe Doctrine in order to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere and protect our territory and our access to key geographic areas throughout the region.” The “Trump corollary” is clearly specified: “We will prevent non-hemispheric competitors from positioning forces or other threatening capabilities, or from owning or controlling strategically vital assets in our hemisphere.” We are warned: U.S. preserve… Which does not prevent them, moreover, and in contradiction with the original Monroe Doctrine, from influencing foreign policies – notably European ones – in the direction of its interests, nor from expanding its “hemisphere” beyond the American continent. Two concrete examples of this “Monroe update” are the seizure by American forces, last November, several hundred kilometers off the coast of Sri Lanka, of a cargo ship traveling from China to Iran, which allegedly transported “dual-use military technology,” and President Trump’s decision, on December 16, to impose a “total and complete blockade” of sanctioned oil tankers to and from Venezuela (several tankers seized to date).
Peace through force… or force above all?
One of the striking elements of the text is the concept of force as a prior and universal tool to any relationship, which goes further than the “Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum” more relevant than ever. Force must deter, dominate, and aggregate partnerships: “Force is the best deterrent weapon. Countries or other actors sufficiently deterred from threatening American interests will not do so. Moreover, force can enable us to achieve peace…” What limit to this concept, certainly operative but which develops its own necessity, because peace through force needs ever more force…?
Intervene? In principle no, but it depends
Faithful to the doctrine of the founders, the American administration is in principle reluctant to intervene, but… “For a country whose interests are as numerous and diverse as ours, it is not possible to adhere rigorously to non-interventionism. However, this predisposition should set high criteria for determining what constitutes a justified intervention.” In short: it depends on what the USA has to gain – or to protect as vital – from an intervention, and, moreover, any intervention will be “reversible” according to U.S. interests… Furthermore, they do not forbid themselves from “acting without intervening”: “We want other nations to consider us as their partner of choice and we will deter them — by various means — from collaborating with others”… To those who understand…
NATO is no longer meant to expand… And the United States questions its future
“Put an end to the perception, and prevent the reality, of NATO as an alliance in perpetual expansion…”; without rhetorical precautions, the Trump administration puts a halt – which answers Russian demands for decades – to the expansion of the Alliance begun in 1999. Beyond that, starting from what it considers to be the civilizational consequences of European migration policies, it raises as never before the question of the future of the alliance: “In the long term, it is more than plausible that, within a few decades at most, some NATO members will become majority non-European. As such, the question remains open as to whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter… If current trends continue, the continent (European) will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. Under these conditions, it is far from evident that some European countries will have an economy and an army strong enough to remain reliable allies…” In short, the USA tells us that it considers that the sustainability of NATO depends on the cultural identity of its members… Without entering into the debate on the merits of this American perception, one can hardly see how the European countries of the alliance will be able to remain without responding to this “question of confidence” that is brutally put to them.
Securing resources and routes
“We must restore our independent and reliable access to the goods we need to defend ourselves and preserve our way of life. This will require expanding U.S. access to critical minerals and materials… Furthermore, the Intelligence Community will monitor key supply chains and technological advances around the world…” Further on: “The United States will always have a fundamental interest in ensuring that Gulf energy supplies do not fall into the hands of a declared enemy, that the Strait of Hormuz remains open…” This point echoes the warnings of the latest CIA report on the risks of disruption to global supply routes, and, beyond Iran clearly targeted with regard to the Persian Gulf, is closely linked to the following point:
Facing China: maintain the status quo in Taiwan, avoid confrontation if possible but deter by force
“Given that one third of global maritime traffic transits each year through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the American economy. It is therefore a priority to deter any conflict around Taiwan, ideally by preserving military superiority. We will also maintain our long-standing declaratory policy on Taiwan, which means that the United States does not support any unilateral change of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.” Beyond that, the USA will strengthen and expand the circle of its reliable allies in the Asia-Pacific in order to contain both Chinese economic and military expansion, anticipate and neutralize the risks of Chinese cutoffs of vital supply routes, and be able to react to any armed action along the “first island chain” (first series of major Pacific archipelagos off the coast of East Asia: mainly composed of the Kuril Islands, the Japanese archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, northern Philippines and Borneo) and throughout the Indo-Pacific region.
Europe in question
This part of the document is the one that has generated the most reactions… in Europe and in France. Never, it is true, had the European vital diagnosis been posed so radically: “…This economic decline is overshadowed by the real and darker prospect of a civilizational erasure… let us cite the activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political freedom and sovereignty, migration policies that transform the continent and create conflicts, censorship of freedom of expression and repression of political opposition, the collapse of birth rates and the loss of national identities and self-confidence… We want Europe to remain European, to regain confidence in its civilization… American diplomacy must continue to defend authentic democracy, freedom of expression and the uncomplex celebration of the character and history specific to each European nation. The United States encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this spiritual renewal, and the growing influence of European patriotic parties is indeed a source of great optimism… Our objective should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory… The United States is, naturally, sentimentally attached to the European continent… We want to work with aligned countries that wish to regain their former greatness…” It is not for us to enter into the debate opened by these American positions. Let us note that reactions in Europe have been strong, such as that of the German chancellor, who judged that certain parts of the U.S. security strategy were “unacceptable.” Beyond replies such as “vassalization,” “humiliation” or “interference,” one can consider that it would be necessary to respond with a structured argument to the American vision. Finally, is the unashamed exposition of a “weak” Europe by the American administration not the expression of a “struggle of political models” (democratic model versus authoritarian model) that is shaking a large part of the world?
Europe and Russia… Europe and Ukraine
Contrary to what has been heard, the American administration does not want to “abandon the Europeans and leave them alone to deal with the problems of their continent”; with regard to relations between Europe and Russia, or even more so the Ukrainian conflict, the USA intends to weigh on developments, even if it means countering the “unrealistic expectations regarding the war” (understand Ukraine’s capacity to recover its lost territories) of European leaders: “Managing relations between Europe and Russia will require significant diplomatic engagement from the United States, both to restore the conditions for strategic stability on the Eurasian continent and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states… It is in the fundamental interest of the United States to negotiate a rapid cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent an escalation or an inadvertent extension of the war, restore strategic stability with Russia… The Trump administration disagrees with European officials who have unrealistic expectations regarding the war, these leaders entrenching themselves in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on the fundamental principles of democracy to repress the opposition” – (The French government is clearly included in the lot). The European trajectory, as well as its foreign policy, are thus “put under pressure” by the American administration, in light of the interests considered vital by it.
Conclusion
There would still be much to underline in the new National Security Strategy of the United States of America, such as, for example, Africa, where the U.S. administration wants to break with the logic of aid and substitute a policy of productive investments. One sees a movement of withdrawal taking shape for the United States, from the “global stage” toward the Western Hemisphere, with a line of defense in the Indo-Pacific. Another synthesis could be to note that the terms “solidarity,” “human rights” and “rule of law” are absent from the document… Likewise, the statement by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Russian state television on December 7th, according to which “The new American security strategy aligns with Russian perceptions” and that “The adjustments we observe correspond in many respects to our vision” indicates that the American administration is today as much a challenge as an ally for many countries and international bodies. The final word can be left to Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War of the United States, during a speech on December 6th at the Reagan National Defense Forum, during which he delivered three times this formula: “The end of utopian idealism; time for hard, pure realism.”
Pierre Brunet
Writer and humanitarian.
Pierre Brunet is a novelist and a member of the Board of Directors of the NGO SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL. He became involved in humanitarian work in Rwanda in 1994, then in 1995 in Bosnia, and has since returned to the field (Afghanistan in 2003, Calais jungle in 2016, migrant camps in Greece and Macedonia in 2016, Iraq and Northeast Syria in 2019, Ukraine in 2023). Pierre Brunet’s novels are published by Calmann-Lévy: “Barnum” in 2006, “JAB” in 2008, “Fenicia” in 2014 and “Le triangle d’incertitude” in 2017. A former journalist, Pierre Brunet regularly publishes analytical and opinion articles, or columns.