The US supported Europe in WWI and WWII largely because Europe was seen as a cultural sibling—rooted in shared white-Christian heritage. The Cold War was largely about defending Christendom from the communist threat. Now the US (mostly right but this is a broader sentiment) views the EU as socialist and sees non-white immigration as Europe's decline. Combined with Europe's weaker military and economic position, this explains why Europe is not longer perceived as a strong ally—and without significant shifts won't be a strong ally in the future. Entire article: Noah Smith Europe is under siege (via Opus 4.5)

https://claude.ai/share/3f5e0166-45c9-4aa7-a4a8-01e0720f7505

Pros

– The Trump administration's 2025 NSS explicitly uses civilizational/demographic framing: The official document warns of Europe becoming "majority non-European," facing "civilizational erasure," and questions whether such nations will "remain reliable allies" - directly validating the cultural anxiety component (2.5 weight)

– Cold War rhetoric among some American conservatives did include religious framing: Noah Smith correctly notes groups like the John Birch Society framed the conflict as "preserving Christendom from godless communism" - this was a real strain of thought (1.5 weight)

– Contemporary MAGA rhetoric reflects civilizational concerns: JD Vance's Munich speech criticized European immigration policies, censorship, and secularization; Trump's circle openly supports European far-right parties on cultural grounds (2.0 weight)

– Europe's relative economic and military weakness is factual: Europe's share of global GDP has declined; defense industrial base is underdeveloped for modern warfare; dependence on US protection is real (1.5 weight)

– Right-wing American media does portray Europe as "socialist" and declining: This perception exists and influences policy preferences, even if factually imprecise (1.0 weight)

Total pros: 8.5 (out of max 10)

Cons

– WWI entry was driven by specific provocations, not cultural solidarity: Historical record shows submarine warfare, the Zimmermann telegram, and economic interests were the actual triggers; Americans were "incensed at being dragged in" and remained neutral for years (2.5 weight)

– WWII entry was reactive to Pearl Harbor, not proactive European defense: The US declared war on Germany only after Germany declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor - not a voluntary civilizational choice (2.0 weight)

– Cold War had primary strategic/geopolitical rationale beyond religion: Containment doctrine, spheres of influence, nuclear balance, and economic competition explain US policy without requiring "defending Christendom" as primary motivation (2.0 weight)

– Multiple non-cultural factors explain current US-Europe tensions: Trade disputes, defense burden-sharing conflicts, Indo-Pacific strategic pivot, regulatory clashes (tech, climate), and personal/institutional animosities all contribute independently (1.5 weight)

– The hypothesis conflates a faction's views with US policy writ large: While MAGA rhetoric reflects these views, significant portions of US foreign policy establishment, Congress, and public still support European alliance for traditional strategic reasons (1.0 weight)

Total cons: 9.0 (out of max 10)

Conclusion:

0.5 (on a -10 to 10 scale) This means uncertain, leaning slightly toward the hypothesis being incomplete or overstated