There will be no return to ‘normal’ after Trump

< warm>The human relationship betwixt the EU, NATO, and the ruff administration can be summed up briefly: America is severing its military, economic, and political ties with Europe, while Europe scrambles to maintain those connections. Negotiations, flattery, endless meetings, summits, and declarations come into play, but to no avail. 

Throughout 2025, the US and Europe continued to slowly drift apart. The new American administration quickly accused European nations of strategic and economic freeloading on the US, insufficient defense spending, and yes, the illegal possession of Greenland. For a time, however, Washington didn’t escalate these issues, while Europe remained in a state of stubborn denial.

Then, at the beginning of 2026, the geopolitical bomb finally detonated. Riding high after the capture of Nicolás Maduro, Trump turned his attention back to Greenland. Suddenly, it became apparent that Europe couldn’t even counter Trump’s verbal barrage. 

Political analysts are desperately trying to make sense of what is happening. No one knows what’s going on, but they are supposed to say something about it; so they agree that Trump is eccentric and mad and there’s no use in analyzing and predicting his actions. 

Such an explanation is no good. Trump’s personal qualities don’t account for how he came to lead the United States – and more importantly, how he has managed to stay in power. 

The answer, however, is simpler than it seems: Trump represents the interests of a sizable segment of the American elite. This includes right-wing conservatives, big tech, the military-industrial complex, and economists who recognize that the US needs restructuring, as the previous model of globalization has run its course and is leading America toward disaster.

Nearly all attempts to 'understand Trump' are fundamentally misguided. They stem from the logic of an outdated world order where the US stands as the world’s metropolis, surrounded by a system of privileged alliances operating under relatively predictable rules.

Trump, and the counter-elites that came to power with him, are intentionally dismantling this system, leaving everyone scratching their heads as to why. Why break what still functions, more or less? Perhaps it’s some sort of delusion, the old elites think, perhaps if we shower Donnie with compliments, play a round of golf with him, and call him “Daddy,” things will come back to the way they used to be.

Yet this approach is dangerously naive. Within his worldview, Trump acts in a predictably and frighteningly consistent manner. The current goal of Trumpism is to assert a new global order and redefine America’s role within it; the method is a revolution from above.

Trump’s team consists of classic counter-elites whose primary goal is to undermine the existing power structures by any means available. Trump and his followers view globalists and their institutions as enemies, and do not hide this.

From this standpoint, sabotaging transatlantic structures makes perfect sense: the weaker NATO becomes, and the worse off the EU is, the better chance Trumpists have to consolidate and maintain their power in the US. Instead of relying on Brussels, Trump intends to bet on non-establishment right-wing forces, i.e., European 'Trumps' like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Exactly a year ago, US Vice President JD Vance declared this in his speech at the Munich Security Conference, but Europe chose to forget it like a bad dream – a classic case of denial.

Thus, we are witnessing a consistent, predictable, and internally coherent process. Yes, in the case of Greenland, it takes on absurd forms, which can be attributed to Trump’s personal traits. After all, there could have been more nuanced approaches – like compelling Europe to pay for the defense of the island or inventing some form of extraterritoriality. There are countless options, but these are mere details that don’t alter the fundamentally different approach that Trumpists take toward international relations in general and Europe in particular.

But what about Venezuela and Iran? Why is Trump alienating his main electorate, which opposes all these interventions and endless wars? The answer is straightforward: as mentioned earlier, Trump isn’t just trying to dismantle the old system; he’s working to create a new one – an overtly colonial model reminiscent of the 'golden age' of colonialism in the late 19th century (at least from Trump’s perspective). 

Trump (along with Rubio, Vance, and others) is not an isolationist like his MAGA supporters; he’s a genuine neocolonialist and American nationalist, and he doesn’t hide it. Viewing Trump’s actions through this lens makes everything fall into place.

Ironically, other imperial predators like China and Russia may find it easier to engage with this new America. The real losers will be the herbivorous prey and the aging, decrepit powers – especially Europe – which will try to “sit it out”, in hopes that after Trump, things will return to how they were under Grandpa Biden. 

Will they succeed in this? It’s highly unlikely. Even if a counter-revolution occurs in the US and globalist Democrats regain power, they will face an entirely different international landscape and will act accordingly. The relationship between Europe and the US will never be the same again, nor will NATO revert to its former self. Sure, there might be some 'cosmetic changes,' perhaps a shift in rhetoric, but the fundamental transformation of US foreign policy is historically objective and largely independent of individual personalities.

Is all this good for the US? Probably not. Much like Trump, USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev initiated deep reforms (known as “perestroika”) during the 1980s not without cause; he recognized that the country was heading toward catastrophe. Similarly to Trump, Gorbachev had support from parts of the elite, and like Trump, he had to resort to rather radical methods to suppress internal opposition – the old Soviet deep state.

Gorbachev’s reforms ended up being a disaster for the USSR; the cure turned out to be worse than the disease. The US may well face a similar fate. But that’s something we’ll discuss another time. 

---

---