The new United States National Security Strategy describes Europe as a continent exposed to economic decline, migratory pressure and risks of “civilisational erasure”. The document urges European states to strengthen sovereignty, identity and strategic responsibility in an unstable framework. Andrea Possieri, professor of contemporary history at the University of Perugia, analyses the political and cultural implications of this American reading for the continent’s future and transatlantic relations.
(Foto SIR)
The U.S. National Strategy document gives a harsh reading of Europe, to the point of evoking the risk of an “erasure of European civilisation”. What does this expression mean, and what idea of Europe does the new American course convey?
Those words have caused dismay, but they are the development of what was stated by James D. Vance in Munich in 2025. Rather than a rupture with Europe, what emerges is a very harsh critique of the European Union. The reference to values signals a distancing from technocratic Europe and from progressive hegemony in public discourse.
A return to a Europe of nations is desired, instead of a Brussels’ Europe.
What new elements does the NSS introduce compared with this already familiar criticism?
The idea is not new, but today it takes on two unprecedented forms: it is formalised in a U.S. political document with national-sovereigntist traits, centred on security, cultural identity and a strong cult of leadership; moreover, in the name of stability between Europe and Russia, it is accompanied by a substantial legitimisation of Putin’s actions in Ukraine. That land needs peace, but a just peace.
The document contrasts a Europe of nation states with supranational integration. What idea of the European Union emerges?
The NSS shows mistrust of the European integration that has developed since the 1990s. The emphasis on national sovereignty suggests a preference for a Europe made up of strong States rather than a political union. It is an approach that scales back the EU’s role in decision-making processes and calls shared sovereignty into question.
The document proposes a vision centred on national sovereignty, border security and industrial strengthening. Europe is described as vulnerable in economic and demographic terms, facing the prospect of “civilisational erasure”. The strategy calls on European states to assume greater responsibility for security and identifies the rapid stabilisation of the conflict in Ukraine as a priority. There is also strong focus on competition with China and the protection of strategic supply chains.
The “America First” framework reshapes transatlantic relations. Can the Christian Democracy tradition offer useful criteria?
That period was fruitful for Italy and for Europe. Even if it cannot be replicated, many of its insights remain relevant. De Gasperi referred to our “Homeland Europe” as a bulwark against nationalist excesses.
The difficulties that prevented a true political Europe in the 1950s are resurfacing today
Despite the dismay at American words and the alarm provoked by Russia, no strong political-cultural capacities for European strategic autonomy are emerging. Yet I still have hope in the generations who grew up after 1989, who are freer from the ideological bonds of the twentieth century: pragmatic young people who can contribute to a new pact founded on solidarity, dialogue and mutual respect, as Montini recalled.
Trump speaks of migrants as “civilisational erosion”. How does this narrative sit with the Christian vision of hospitality?
It does not sit. The Catholic world has always combined human dignity, hospitality, and the rule of law. Today, however, the attitude towards migrants is often conditioned by ideological or emotional visions and by scant knowledge of the phenomenon. Public discourse is marked by two factors: on the one hand,
criticism of immigration has become a symbolic resource for electoral purposes, reading flows as a threat to public order and ethnic identity;
on the other, ineffective migration policies have generated problems in the suburbs, fuelling insecurity and hostility. The key issue for the future will be integration, and thus citizenship.
If the transatlantic relations were to weaken, what space would be left for Europe as a global mediator?
To propose a “third way”, Europe must be a fully-fledged political actor. Economic-institutional integration is no longer sufficient. A stirring of the soul is needed; otherwise, we risk irrelevance. This moment could favour a new political proposal, but a bottom-up will is necessary, one that would work, for example, towards a Constituent Assembly for Europe. There are many difficulties, but change can only come from politics. The only way to respond to decline is to take the initiative, recovering the Founding Fathers’ project for a united and supportive Europe, shaped not by fear but by responsibility.
