Europe’s Strategic Suicide

Every once in a while, the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” produce a genius of rare quality. That person is Alain de Benoist. De Benoist is clear-eyed about the present and future and worth a listen.

A leading figure in the French New Right, de Benoist described to Breizh-info.com the resurgence of Donald Trump’s power as a major geopolitical upheaval, second only in his lifetime to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. He suggests this would lay bare Europe’s strategic weaknesses and ideological inconsistencies, underscoring its diminishing influence as the United States redefines its role in the world.

This article explores de Benoist’s ideas, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy, the fate of the transatlantic alliance, and what Europe’s leaders fail to grasp about power in the modern world.

Trump’s Return: A Second Historic Rupture

For de Benoist, Trump’s re-election is a decisive moment. He compares it to the collapse of the Soviet Union — an event few foresaw but reshaped global geopolitics.

The first shock of Trump’s presidency was the resumption of direct communication between the White House and the Kremlin. Shortly after, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered some home truths in a blistering speech in Munich, calling Europe a model of civilizational suicide due to its immigration policies and moralistic globalism. Days later, Trump announced that Ukraine would never join NATO, and on March 3, he cut off all U.S. aid to Kyiv. The message was clear: America was stepping back from Europe’s security.

To Europeans, the implications are unthinkable. The transatlantic alliance is unraveling before their eyes. Washington no longer sees Europe as a priority, which it isn’t, at least economically, leaving the continent alone with its security challenges. De Benoist argues that there’s no way back for the Atlantic Alliance.

An Avoidable War

De Benoist views the war in Ukraine as a tragic but predictable consequence of NATO’s overreach. He thinks the primary cause of the conflict was the U.S.-led effort to push NATO forces up to Russia’s borders. He argues that Russia responded as any great power would if faced with a similar provocation. The war might have been avoided if European leaders approached the situation pragmatically — perhaps advocating a federalized Ukraine with autonomy for Russian-speaking regions. Instead, ideological rigidity turned Ukraine into the battleground for a proxy war between NATO and Russia.

Trump, ever the pragmatist, has concluded that Ukraine has lost. After three years of fighting, despite hundreds of billions in Western aid, the much-touted collapse of Russia never materialized. According to de Benoist, European leaders failed to articulate any clear strategic goal for the war. Unlike them, Trump understands Clausewitz: war is a means to an end, and without a political objective, it’s pointless. This is why he ended American support for Ukraine. European elites view this as a betrayal but, in de Benoist’s view, it’s simply realpolitik.

Europe’s Military Delusions

European leaders like French President Macron are calling for rearmament now that America is moving on. Yet, de Benoist dismisses this as delusional. For decades, European nations have dismantled their industrial and military capabilities, relying on the American security umbrella. And yet they believe they can rebuild their defenses overnight.

Macron once declared NATO “brain-dead”. Now he insists Europe must take charge of its security. But de Benoist sees this as posturing. France’s thin and underfunded military cannot lead a European defense effort. Meanwhile, having hollowed out its defense sector, Germany cannot take up the mantle either.

De Benoist argues that Europe misread its security environment. The obsession with a supposed “Russian threat” is, in his words, nothing but a manufactured panic designed to keep European populations in fear. Instead of confronting its economic stagnation, demographic decline, and social fragmentation, Europe is “delirious[ly] warmongering.”

Commercial Conflict Over Military Adventurism

De Benoist get that Trump’s foreign policy is transactional. Unlike his predecessors, Trump doesn’t disguise American interventionism as “defending democracy.” Instead, he approaches global power dynamics as a businessman: everything is a deal and has a price.

De Benoist argues that Trump isn’t an isolationist, as many claim, but a commercial warrior. He sees military conflicts as expensive and inefficient, preferring economic coercion, tariffs, and trade wars over outright military engagement. His approach to geopolitics is shaped by the old American frontier mentality — where land, resources, and influence are commodities to be acquired and traded.

This doesn’t mean Trump is soft on America’s adversaries. His administration is already seeking ways to exploit Russia’s energy wealth through joint Arctic projects while trying to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. He won’t turn Russia into an ally, but he will try to find an understanding with Putin that serves American interests first.

The Fate of Europe in a Multipolar World

De Benoist describes the European elite as “sleepwalkers” unable to grasp the realities of the new multipolar world. For decades, the European Union has been governed by a rigid ideology centered on market liberalism, human rights, and American-style democracy. But in the new global order, power, not morality, determines international relations.

Trump and Putin view Europe as an aging, declining continent incapable of asserting itself. While the rest of the world moves toward pragmatic power politics, European leaders remain trapped in ideological battles with little relevance to real geopolitics. As a result, Europe is caught between American abandonment and its self-inflicted strategic paralysis.

A Civilizational Crossroads

De Benoist argues that Europe faces a choice: adapt to the new world order or fade into irrelevance. He envisions a world divided into “civilizational states,” where great powers assert themselves based on their historical and cultural identities. In this new order, Europe can no longer afford to see itself as a universalist moral authority imposing its values on the rest of the world. Instead, it must recognize itself as one among several great cultural and geopolitical blocs.

Yet, de Benoist is pessimistic about Europe’s chances of making this transition. He argues the continent is suffering from “civilizational exhaustion,” much as Oswald Spengler predicted a century ago. Lacking leadership, Europe is paralyzed by internal divisions and ideological delusions.

Wrap Up

History is accelerating, and Europe is unprepared. As The Donald reshapes America’s global role, Russia and China consolidate their influence, and Europe can’t keep up. It is led by politicians who, having never faced real geopolitical crises, now find themselves utterly incapable of navigating the new world order.

Europe must decide whether to break free from its ideological inertia and reclaim its agency in the emerging multipolar world. If it doesn’t, it risks becoming nothing more than an impotent continent caught between stronger powers. For de Benoist, the choice is clear: adapt or perish.

The clock is ticking. Europe needs to wake up.