Trump’s recent conduct in threatening to suspend arms deliveries to Ukraine can be understood within a broader structural pattern in US foreign policy—one grounded in extracting security concessions from allies. Over past decades, particularly within the framework of NATO, Washington has tied European security to deep dependency, and is now using that same dependency as an instrument of pressure. Europe, which moved away from relative military autonomy in the post–World War II order, now faces a difficult binary: either absorb the escalating costs of the Ukraine war or contend with a reduction in US military support.
This dynamic suggests that the United States has functioned less as a security partner and more as a “manager of security costs” for Europe. In this context, the threat to cut support to Kyiv is not merely a tactical move but part of a broader strategy to shift the burden of war onto Europe while maintaining control over its security decision-making. In effect, Washington is leveraging the Ukraine crisis to reproduce and deepen the structure of dependency.
Strait of Hormuz and failure of Iran containment strategy
Alongside the Ukraine crisis, US pressure on Europe to participate in initiatives related to reopening or strategically controlling the Strait of Hormuz reflects Washington’s continued focus on the geopolitical containment of Iran. However, realities on the ground indicate that this strategy faces significant constraints. Iran, relying on indigenous defense capabilities and its geopolitical position in the Persian Gulf, has managed to tilt the deterrence equation in its favor.
Within this framework, pressure on Europe to join such coalitions is viewed not as a position of strength, but as an attempt to compensate for Washington’s strategic setbacks in the region. European states are well aware that any direct involvement in a Hormuz escalation scenario would carry heavy economic and energy consequences for the continent. As a result, divergences between Washington and European capitals are deepening, placing the traditional cohesion of the West under serious strain.
Ukraine, NATO, and the erosion of trust in diplomacy
In the Ukraine dossier, the contradiction between US rhetoric and conduct has become more evident than ever. While Ukraine functions as the principal arena of a Western proxy war with Russia, Washington simultaneously speaks of “negotiation” and “de-escalation.” This duality suggests that diplomacy in US foreign policy is not a mechanism for resolving crises, but rather a cover for managing conflict.
In this light, Trump’s threat to reduce or suspend military aid underscores that the continuation of the Ukraine war is less a matter of principled commitment than a tool of geopolitical pressure. It also indicates that Russia is engaged in a war of attrition whose parameters are determined not solely on the battlefield, but at the level of decision-making within NATO and Washington. Consequently, global trust in Western diplomatic processes has been significantly undermined.
Global implications and decline of a West-centric order
The United States’ contradictory conduct in Ukraine and the Middle East points to the gradual erosion of a West-centric global order. Europe now finds itself at a strategic crossroads, forced to choose between greater autonomy and continued security alignment with Washington. Sustained dependence implies accepting a peripheral role in major global decisions, while distancing itself carries substantial political and security costs.
On the other side, Iran, by employing a strategy of active deterrence, has been able to redefine regional security dynamics and demonstrate that indigenous security models can withstand traditional Western power structures. Under these conditions, the international system appears to be moving toward genuine multipolarity—one in which the security dominance of the United States and its allies is no longer sustainable.