Is the US sending mixed signals — or is the Western Alliance divided against itself?

Breakfast with Bwana

By Anil Madan

In February 2025, US Secretary of Defense (or of War, if you prefer) spoke at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels, Belgium. In what Europeans viewed as an abdication of America’s voluntary undertaking to be the anchor guaranteeing Europe’s security, Hegseth declared: “Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.” Calling on members of the group to meet the moment, he explained that it means that “European countries must donate more ammunition and equipment, expand their defense industrial base, and importantly, level with their citizens about the threat facing Europe.”

Hegseth also said that the US would not commit troops to protect Ukraine after a peace deal with Russia.

‘This year, the Trump administration published the National Security Strategy. The assessment of Europe as an orphan gone astray is stark. The administration lamented the economic decline of Europe, and the document went on to state: “But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure…’ Pic – Vision Think-tank

Whereas Hegseth cast his call for Europe to do more for its own defense as a joint undertaking his words suggested that America has other plans: “Our transatlantic alliance has endured for decades, and we fully expect that it will be sustained for generations to come. But… it will require our European allies to step into the arena and take ownership of conventional security on the continent. The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe — full stop — but the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship… which encourages dependency; rather our relationship will prioritize empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security.”

Until now, NATO has been seen as key alliance for keeping Russia at bay as it held the Soviet Union in check.

Left unsaid was whether Hegseth’s reference to “conventional security” means that the US nuclear umbrella continues to protect Europe. Europeans, ever fearful of Russian aggression, did not need to be reminded that Russia is the only realistic nuclear threat to Europe. True, both France and Britain are, at least nominally, nuclear capable countries, but no one is under any illusion that they have delivery and missile systems to match Russia’s capabilities.

Hegseth tried to reassure his audience: “NATO is a great alliance, the most successful defense alliance in history,” he said. “But to endure for the future, partners must do far more for Europe’s defense. We must make NATO great again. It begins with defense spending. It must also include reviving the trans-Atlantic defense industrial base, rapidly fielding emerging technologies, prioritizing readiness and lethality and establishing real deterrence.”

But it became clear that the US no longer views European security as its primary focus as Hegseth added that “stark strategic realities” will compel the US to focus more on other areas of the world.

The threat from within

A few days later, at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, US Vice President J.D. Vance addressed the gathering. Asserting that the Trump administration remains very concerned with European security, he expressed his belief that “we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine.” But he went on to say: “We also believe that it’s important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense,” and “the threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values — values shared with the United States of America.” That was a year ago. No reasonable settlement seems to be in sight.

As Vance sees it, European leaders are guilty of failing to halt illegal migration, running in fear from the true beliefs of their citizens, suppressing free speech, and unjustifiably cancelling elections — as seen recently in Romania.

As discordant as that note was, the overriding significance was that Vance made it clear that Ukraine is Europe’s problem and the US is not serious about viewing Russian aggression as a common problem facing Europe and America. Certainly, the Europeans read it that way. And so did the Canadians.

Canada’s Prime Minister Carney received a standing ovation at Davos this year when he reframed the relationship of countries he referred to as the “middle powers” to the elephants in the room. He said:

“We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

“This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.”

So, the middle powers went along and largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

But Carney declared: “This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

In an essay, ‘How to Avert the Tragedy of Great-Power Politics’ in Foreign Affairs, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wrote:

“The United States’ claim to global leadership is being challenged, perhaps even squandered. And the international order that was based on rights and rules, imperfect as it was even in its best days, no longer exists.”

The prescription, Merz wrote, is that “Europe must also become a global political player with its own security policy. In Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union, members commit to assisting each other in the event of an armed attack. We must now spell out how we could organize this at the EU level, not as a substitute for NATO but as a self-sustaining, strong pillar of the alliance.” The message is clear. Article 42.7 echoes Article 5 of the NATO charter.

Europe and civilizational erasure

This year, the Trump administration published the National Security Strategy. The assessment of Europe as an orphan gone astray is stark. The administration lamented the economic decline of Europe, and the document went on to state: “But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.”

Here were echoes of J.D. Vance’s Munich speech last year.

Finland’s President, Alexander Stubb, in an interview with David Ignatius of The Washington Post expressed concern about whether the Trump administration has the bandwidth to focus on Ukraine which is his country’s primary concern: “We have the Board of Peace, we have Ukraine, we have Gaza, we have Iran, we have Venezuela, we have Greenland. And I just hope that this doesn’t take too much oxygen away from Ukraine.”

Stubb has no illusions about Russia and wants to have an Arctic strategy within NATO to deter Putin. Even a peace agreement for Ukraine can be good, bad, or a compromise. “But that will then create a new scenario as well. What do you do with one million Russian soldiers? Well, a lot of them will go to the Finnish border.”

Against this backdrop, President Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner conduct talks on an end to Russia’s war on Ukraine, peace in Gaza and development of the strip, and a deal to terminate Iran’s nuclear enrichment and possibly its missile production as well.

At the Munich Security Conference, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke in what some press accounts have described as more conciliatory language than Vance and Hegseth used a year ago. But was it just a distinction without a difference? Rubio echoed concerns about civilization erasure: “We want to support our allies in preserving the freedom and security of Europe, while restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity.”

And despite saying that the US wishes to be Europe’s partner, his message was clear that America’s aim is to let Europe fend for itself: “We want to do it together with you, with a Europe that is proud of its heritage and of its history; with a Europe that has the spirit of creation of liberty that sent ships out into uncharted seas and birthed our civilization; with a Europe that has the means to defend itself and the will to survive.”

Europeans continue to be rankled. Kaja Kallas, the European High Representative and Vice President of the European Union said simply: “Contrary to what some may say, woke, decadent Europe is not facing civilizational erasure.”

From ideology to transactions

President Trump claims to have reached a deal with India to reduce tariffs and says that India has agreed not to buy additional Russian oil. This is a mixed message about indirect sanctions on Russian. Meanwhile, India has made trade deals with Canada and Europe. President Zelensky of Ukraine complains that it is unfair of President Donald Trump to publicly call on Ukraine to make concessions to Russia in peace talks as a second day of negotiations ended without a breakthrough.

Zelensky also confirmed that Kirill Dmitriev, who heads Russia’s sovereign wealth fund is proposing a deal worth roughly $12 trillion framework for large-scale economic cooperation between the US and Moscow. Is this real? Well, Russia’s nominal GDP is projected to be about $2.5 trillion in 2025.

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 20 February 2026