The peril of self-interest: Trump’s individualism vs. Europe's collective security in a fractured world
The war in Ukraine has laid bare a fundamental divide in how global powers view their responsibilities. At the heart of this contrast are two sharply different approaches: President Donald Trump’s hard-nosed individualism, rooted in economic self-interest, and Europe’s often clumsy but deeply felt commitment to collective security. As the world teeters on the edge of deeper conflict, Trump’s model—dismissive of territorial integrity and reluctant to uphold alliances—emerges not just as shortsighted, but as potentially catastrophic.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has doubled down on this individualist approach. His latest push for a peace conference with Russia, one that would exclude both Ukraine and Europe, is a glaring example. It reflects his long-standing view that America can solve global conflicts on its own, cutting deals directly with adversaries while sidelining allies. This approach treats diplomacy as a personal transaction rather than a collective effort to safeguard international stability. It is the mindset of an only child negotiating for himself, not a family working together to secure the future.
Trump’s worldview has always been transactional. He sees America as an independent player, unburdened by obligations to others unless there’s a direct financial or strategic payoff. Now, his push to broker a separate peace with Russia underscores a dangerous belief: that America can secure its own interests while leaving others to fend for themselves.
The danger here is profound. Territorial integrity—the principle that borders must not be redrawn by force—has underpinned global stability since the end of World War II. Undermining that principle invites chaos. When the world’s leading power signals that it no longer cares about defending its allies or deterring aggression, it emboldens revisionist states like Russia and China. If borders become negotiable, every nation must either arm itself to the teeth or risk subjugation... making global conflict inevitable.
Europe, by contrast, understands the cost of war in its bones. While often divided and slow to act, European nations recognize that their security is collective. The invasion of Ukraine awakened a painful memory: that unchecked aggression can spiral into continent-wide catastrophe. Their support for Kyiv is not merely moral; it is a defense of the post-war order that has kept Europe largely at peace for nearly eighty years.
Trump’s approach is seductive in its simplicity—Why should America bear the burden? Why not focus on home?—but it risks pulling the world back into a pre-World War II mindset, where might made right and conflicts escalated unchecked. When protection is up for sale, and borders are negotiable, we edge closer to a future where wars of conquest become the norm. In such a world, the seeds of World War III are not just planted—they are watered.
The lesson from Ukraine is clear: security is not just an expense; it is an investment in peace. Abandoning that for short-term profit or ego could cost the world far more than any nation can afford.
