The Priorities of the Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: America First, Europe Fourth; The International Order Will Undergo Major Changes

Recently, there was an interesting analysis in the American strategic circle, directly listing the foreign policy priorities of the Trump administration as "America First, Europe Fourth." This ranking is not just a casual remark; it reflects a fundamental, even revolutionary change in the direction of American foreign policy.

According to this article's analysis, the current priority order of American diplomacy is as follows: first is the Western Hemisphere, namely America's own backyard, including Latin America and the Caribbean; second is the Indo-Pacific region, primarily targeting China; third is the Middle East; and finally, Europe comes in fourth.

If this ranking were placed in any period since the end of World War II, it would be considered astonishing. It should be noted that from the Cold War to now, Europe's position in America's global strategy has always been core to the core, serving as the cornerstone of America's participation in world affairs. Now, suddenly dropping to fourth place is quite a significant shift.

So, why has this ranking emerged? The article mentions several key reasons. First is the Trump administration's overall diplomatic concept of a "hemispheric" shift. In simple terms, America is now more focused on its own backyard than at any other time, such as immigration issues, border security, and competition for influence in Latin America.

This inward contraction tendency will naturally lead to a reduction in strategic resources allocated to other regions. Europe, as a traditional ally system that requires significant American investment, is first in line to be sidelined.

Secondly, the Trump administration's view of Europe has undergone a qualitative change. In the past, whether under Democratic or Republican administrations, Europe was generally seen as a "force multiplier" that could be relied upon, an important partner in addressing global challenges. But it seems this administration does not see it that way anymore.

One of the core views of the Trump team is that certain regions in Eastern Europe can be considered part of Russia's "sphere of influence," and America doesn't need to bear such high costs to confront Russia directly. If this idea comes to fruition, it would overturn the tradition established since President Wilson, delivering a fatal blow to Europe's security architecture.

The third point, which is quite ironic, is that the ideological bond between the U.S. and Europe has not only failed to act as a glue but has instead become a separator. The populism represented by "America First" under Trump and the value systems of Europe's mainstream political elites have diverged increasingly.

Some American government officials have even openly criticized Europe's domestic policies, intervening in Europe's cultural wars. When the foundation of shared values is shaken, strategic cooperation naturally becomes difficult to sustain.

At this point, we must mention the issue of Ukraine. This article argues that the Trump administration's attitude towards the Ukraine crisis most clearly reflects the decline of Europe's status in its strategy. The core judgment from the U.S. side is that the Ukraine war has limited impact on America's core interests because "there is a vast ocean between us."

Therefore, the Trump team is more interested in how to quickly reach a ceasefire agreement, even if this agreement might come at the cost of sacrificing Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as long as it can secure a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. This transactional, short-term thinking has left European allies, especially those bordering Russia, feeling extremely uneasy.

The author of the article, an American scholar, candidly prescribes a remedy for Europe: you must rely on yourselves. He suggests that Europe must significantly increase defense spending, reform its inefficient defense industrial system, promote genuine European defense integration, and even be prepared to take on a leadership role in NATO, as America may really be ready to "throw in the towel."

However, this American scholar may be overly optimistic about Europe's unity and strategic resolve. A look back at history shows that Europe has often gotten itself into a messy situation, with the origins of both world wars located in Europe.

Thus, this ranking of "America First, Europe Fourth" appears to be just a priority list, but it reflects the profound changes that may be occurring in the post-war international order.