Don’t blame US President Donald Trump for the souring of transatlantic relations, Henry Olsen told a Brussels Signal event this week.
While Trump has been at the centre of controversy over his undiplomatic negotiating style, deeper forces were at work, said Olsen, a columnist and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre in Washington.
He argued that core US interests transcended any single administration and would continue to shape Washington’s policy regardless of who was in power.
Olsen said while there was room for optimism, change was necessary.
On transatlantic relations, he said each country had its own weight and interests but noted that common goals remained.
The US had historically been isolationist and that internationalism was a more recent phenomenon, often driven by well-understood self-interest, he said.
He reminded the audience that certain episodes of US internationalism had proven highly unpopular in Europe at the time, such as the Vietnam War or, later, the 2003 war in Iraq.
Olsen also said that for a long time, “what Europeans did procure was the continued promise of the American security umbrella, which America generously provided…In part because they never thought it was going to be called upon, because Russia was weak, even as it became more militarised under President Putin and more aggressive internationally.”
He noted that when NATO was conceived, the US and Europe had roughly the same values, being similarly traditional and religious, something that was “no longer the case.”
“Things that are considered intolerable in Europe are considered constitutional values in the United States”.
Regarding the latest controversy around Greenland, Olsen said the US, under Trump’s first term, had initially tried to tackle the issue amicably but nothing happened.
Now, the US Government had taken a more aggressive stance.
Trump’s approach angered allies and nationalism was now, at times, directed against the US as a result, Olsen added.
Denmark now took the situation more seriously, although it has left lasting tensions, perhaps by design rather than accident, he said.
Derk Jan Eppink, columnist, author and former MEP, was a special guest at the Brussels Signal event and noted that European policymakers struggled to understand US Republicans, who were more Conservative and operated differently to Democrats.
He said there was a sharp contrast between Europe’s preference for “soft power” and the US’ more direct, sometimes forceful approach. NATO would remain a force but must adapt, according to Jan Eppink.
He said that Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, had the skill set to smooth individual differences — a crucial asset.
Adding to the lack of understanding of US Republicans in Europe, Eppink noted that domestic media presented an overwhelmingly hostile view of Trump, fuelling negative emotions.
That had led to figures like French National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, Italy Prime Minister Georgia Meloni and Canadian Conservatives to distance themselves from Trump. At the same time, Germany’s right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) has received some support from figures like Musk and Vance — but cautiously so, he said.
Olsen said recent leaks about US top officials showed growing frustration regarding Europe. It remained an open question as to whether the US would turn to isolationism again.
He said the rise of China was the primary security concern for the US.
“The US faces competing impulses — neo-isolationism and neo-pacifism — while also lacking large trade surpluses that might support a more interventionist strategy,” he said.
Regarding Ukraine, the US and European perspectives remained far apart . “Is Europe willing to pay the cost? What does victory look like?
“There is a gap between aspiration and reality,” he said.
Eppink added that, despite the common conception that many had in Europe, Russia was far from isolated and had been continuing to trade with two-thirds of the world.
“Oil prices have risen due to sanctions, benefiting Russia while contributing to inflation and tax increases in the West,” he pointed out.
He added that many countries did not see Russia as an existential threat. Even within the European Union, many regarded migration from the South and Islam as more pressing matters.
“Over the next generation, Europe could change profoundly”, Eppink said.
Europe’s response to Russian revanchism, a desire to regain lost territory, had been shaped by national interests. France was using the EU to expand its own influence, as was often the case, while Germany was struggling with itself, sometimes losing its rationality.
Another issue mentioned by Olsen was what he saw as the growing generational divide, with older US citizens having nostalgic and positive emotions toward Europe that younger people lacked.
Especially on the Right, the main concern of many citizens was to avoid repeating situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.
“A nostalgic view of the past doesn’t cut it.”
Alongside that, Olsen said, the US Left was increasingly critical of Western history, seeing it as a colonialist power striving for economic dominance and negatively impacting the environment, which further shaped transatlantic relations.
