التوجه شرقاً

In a world dominated by the model of the modern nation-state, with all that it implies of selfishness and security concerns, governed by values and the dynamics of conflict, it is strategically impossible to accurately determine where the danger comes from... nor to be assured of serving the interests of the state within a regional and international environment, ruled by historical grievances... cultural complexities... religious biases... ideological backgrounds... and expansionist ambitions, with all the resulting instability for any existing global system, governed by global powers competing for a high status of universal dominance... and lacking political institutions, legal texts, or executive authorities that enforce its laws and control the behavior of its members.

The active states in the international system, established after World War II, have not resolved their vision for the future of peace, as much as their focus has been on managing conflict in the post-war phase, even with the development of unconventional (nuclear) weapons that cannot be used, nor even threatened to be used. On the Western (European) front, no specific state gained exclusive benefits from the defeat of Nazi Germany; instead, Germany was governed by four major countries, amid a long history of conflict and mistrust. This is almost the same result that ended the Great War (1914-1939).

Even the use of the atomic bomb to end the war on the Eastern Pacific front did not result in a state of stability following the defeat of the Japanese Empire. War soon erupted on the fronts of Korea (1950-1953) and Vietnam (1965-1975). In the former, the United States could not resolve it... and in the latter, it faced a resounding strategic defeat that harmed the global reputation of the United States, causing the Western Pacific front, after seven and a half decades, to become the most challenging front to the international status of the United States, and indeed to world peace.

The United States' primary strategic enemy these days, as announced by the Trump administration, is: China, not the Russian bear, on the Atlantic front; which lurks, waiting, east of the Ural Mountains, to pounce on American defenses in Western Europe. The current U.S. security strategic doctrine sees the cost of defending Europe as a strategically losing deal, and that it is better to focus Washington's resources on the Western Pacific front (China), because the memory of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (December 1941) has not yet faded from memory. This is why we find the United States focusing on the security of its allies on the Pacific front (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea), while almost abandoning its security commitments on the Atlantic front in Western Europe, with the exception of Britain, to some extent.

The United States, which has been crowned as the leader and governor of the United Nations system, at least from the perspective of its North Atlantic allies, seems ready to abandon this front to focus eastward on the Pacific front. This has prompted Western European countries to seek strategic alternatives for their security, relying primarily on their own resources, rather than those they leaned on after the Second World War. U.S. allies in the European Union sensed danger from their strategic ally across the Atlantic when Washington lost enthusiasm for the war against Russia in Ukraine, to the extent of neglecting the allies' interests, particularly security ones, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), under Washington's new vision; ending the Russian war on Ukraine by pressuring Kyiv, not Moscow! This heightened the concerns of EU countries about the Trump administration including its Western allies in the list of countries affected by Washington's trade war on the world, under the pretext of reducing the U.S. trade deficit with almost all countries!

In short; the current Trump administration no longer cares about protecting the United States' traditional allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), turning eastward, recalling the memory of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, making the vast Pacific region, directly overlooking the long and warm shores of North America, a potential battleground in the future, in defense of U.S. national security... and safeguarding its high universal status.

This shift in Washington's strategic doctrine cannot be anticipated to develop into a new strategic doctrine for Washington, based on internal political and military support. We will wait until the end of the current and final Trump administration; perhaps strategic interest in the Eastern Atlantic European front will be restored, without necessarily abandoning the Western Pacific front. However, what is almost certain is that EU countries no longer trust the possibility of continuing to rely on strategic support from Washington... and the continuation of the American security (nuclear) umbrella, which is no longer "free"... and replacing it with purely European self-capabilities.

In the end: The European Union's security can only be scratched by the nails of its members, as is the natural situation for any state or any regional bloc of states, within a contemporary global system governed by the model of the modern nation-state.