Europe must reject Trump’s nonsense accusations of ‘civilizational erasure’ – but it urgently needs a strategy of its own

European leaders must agree on how to respond to the accusation that their continent faces “civilizational erasure”. These were the strongest words used in the most strongly-worded national security strategy ever released by a US government, making it clear that allyship is no longer a given.

And yet, what exactly does “civilizational erasure” mean? The term seems to come straight out of science fiction and deserves qualification. What kind of civilization is being erased?

The document released by the US government explicitly specifies that this is not about economic decline so much as the “values” that make European nations “reliable allies” to the US.

The implication is that the current administration is worried that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are no longer foundational to Europe as they were to America. In addition, it seems that Trump is worried that migration is the cause of this problem.

This is curious. As far as “freedom of speech” and “political liberty” go, even the ranking published annually by the hyper libertarian Washington-based Cato Institute acknowledges that six of the top ten most free countries of the world are from the EU. In contrast, the US is tied with the UK at number 17.

The evidence on being “happy” is even worse for Americans (they are ranked 24th by Gallup) and even better for Europeans (four of the top five happiest nations in the world seem to be in the EU, and the fifth is Iceland).

Perhaps the most dangerous symptom of civilizational decline is apparent when we consider the parameter of the ability to pursue “life”. According to the OECD, in 2024, the US spent more on health than any other country per person at over U$12,000 (£9,000) per year (Switzerland, in a distant second place, at US$8,000). Yet Americans’ life expectancy is six years less on average than Europeans’.

Last but not least, migration. The US government seems concerned that too many immigrants will make Europe unrecognisable, but it is the United States that hosts the largest number of first or second-generation immigrants (including Donald Trump, whose mother and four grandparents were all born in Europe). The security strategy’s diagnosis seems oddly oblivious to the role migrants played in building American success.

How should Europe respond?

It is, thus, difficult to see how Europe is being erased. It is nevertheless true that Europe has a problem. Whereas the US has a strategy, Europeans are very far from even agreeing on what their own interests are.

As wrong as the US may be to attempt to establish a strategy on Europe’s behalf, this lack of vision makes it increasingly unsustainable for Europe to remain one of the best places to be born or to live.

Three messages stand out clearly from the strategy. First, the US does not want to be the world’s sheriff and is not going to pay to stabilise the world. There is even the implication here that the US is happy for the world to be divided into cold war-style “areas of influence”.

Second, the US now believes it is a mistake to think exporting democracy or liberalism maximises the chance of world peace and will no longer pursue this agenda. Third, the US believes that nation states are the cornerstone of any possible world order and that multilateralism (a notion encompassing a diverse range of institutions from the UN to the EU) is undermining that.

While Europe does not need to agree on these assertions, it can use each of the three US points to come up with a response.

It should, for example, be relatively happy to fill the gap left by US retreat. This would see Europe equipping itself to contribute to stability in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Europe should probably also acknowledge that the Americans have a point when they say that “exporting democracy” does not necessarily buy peace.

Second, Europe can even agree with the US that “exporting” institutions and market regulations is complicated and not effective. We must simply focus on protecting human rights as much as possible, without asking other countries to imitate our model.

Third, and most important, it is true that international organisations are not working. But Europeans should answer US rhetoric not by going back to small nation states (as the security strategy suggests) but by assuming the leadership of a radical reform of multilateralism.

The international organisations that Trump has criticised, must rapidly become more capable of delivering solutions efficiently. This must include the EU because it’s obvious that any kind of strategy cannot be led by 27 individual nations working separately.

European civilization is not imploding. It is, however, true that such a civilization requires financial, political and defence resources. These were once bought cheaply from allies who no longer wish to subsidise Europe’s way of life.

It is time for a European security strategy. And one whose message, in a nutshell, is that Europeans are ready to lead and thrive in the changed geopolitcal climate of the 21st century.

Francesco Grillo is affiliated with Vision, the think tank,