Global media outlets continue to highlight remarks made by Finnish President Alexander Stubb in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat. This is hardly surprising: today, the Finnish leader is among the few Western politicians attempting to analyse global developments with a broader perspective, rather than strictly through the left-liberal lens so strongly promoted by Brussels. At the same time, some aspects of Stubb’s recent comments raise legitimate questions about how well Europe as a whole actually understood the electoral platform of the 47th U.S. President, Donald Trump.
This is far from an abstract question. The Finnish president pointed directly to the transformation of U.S. foreign policy, noting that Washington’s values and interests have undergone a significant recalibration and are now “increasingly centered on economic priorities.” He also stressed that the “use of force” has taken on a new character, one that in many cases “relies far less on international institutions and the views of allies.” Such, Alexander Stubb concluded, is the emerging reality of contemporary geopolitics.
And it is precisely this reality for which European leaders proved unprepared when confronted with the steps taken in recent months by the occupant of the White House. In acknowledging the situation now unfolding, they are effectively admitting that they failed to pay serious attention to the electoral platform of Donald Trump — especially given that it largely reflected the broader position of the Republican Party itself. Had European policymakers examined its core principles more carefully, many of Trump’s actions would hardly have seemed unexpected.
It is enough to recall several points from the platform that the American president pledged to implement during the Republican Party’s 2024 election campaign.
By emphasising the extent to which America’s identity and way of life were under threat, Donald Trump revived the idea of a return to the “American spirit,” which, in his view, would lead the United States toward a “brighter future” — above all by making America a great power once again. Central to this vision was the need to “unleash American energy,” a step that, according to Trump, would enable the country to build “the Greatest Economy in History,” revive its defence-industrial base, and reestablish the United States as the world’s leading manufacturing superpower. Such measures, it was argued, would make America “Energy Independent, and even Dominant again.”
From this emerged the renewed emphasis on the slogan that became a cornerstone of Trump’s political doctrine — “Peace through Strength.” In his view, this approach would put an end to global chaos, including by turning the United States into the world’s leading producer of oil and natural gas through the removal of restrictions on domestic energy production and the rollback of the “Green New Deal.” The result, as envisioned by the platform’s authors, would be the relocation of critical supply chains to the United States, strengthening both national security and the country’s economic power, thereby paving the way for America’s revival. Within this broader framework, the Republican platform also underscored the importance of measures that aim to “revoke China’s Most Favored Nation status.”
It is precisely in this context that the logic behind the policy of “Peace through Strength” becomes clear. The concept envisaged a series of key measures aimed at rebuilding the American military and strengthening alliances designed to counter Beijing, while simultaneously advancing projects such as the “Iron Dome” missile defence system and promoting American values that, according to the platform’s vision, would contribute to the revival of the U.S. defence-industrial base.
As the document further specified, the United States would also guarantee “a safe and prosperous future for all.” In this context, Washington’s foreign policy would be grounded first and foremost in national interests, with the country’s security ensured by armed forces envisioned as “the most modern, lethal and powerful Force in the World.” In line with this approach, the platform placed particular emphasis on support for Israel and on efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East.
As was stated, “we will rebuild our Alliance Network in the Region to ensure a future of Peace, Stability, and Prosperity.” In a similar vein, the platform emphasised defending the interests of “Strong, Sovereign, and Independent Nations in the Indo-Pacific,” — countries regarded in practice as key U.S. allies.
Thus, if one examines today’s geopolitical landscape through the prism of Donald Trump’s electoral platform, it is difficult to identify any major deviation in U.S. foreign policy from the course that had originally been proclaimed. For that reason, the observations made by Alexander Stubb should hardly be perceived as something shocking or unexpected.
A number of serious analysts point out that the accusations frequently directed at Trump — both domestically and internationally — ranging from “obsession” to “diplomatic unprofessionalism,” do not, in reality, withstand close scrutiny. In their view, the actions of the 47th president of the United States appear carefully calibrated and fully consistent with the promises laid out during his election campaign.
Of course, such expert assessments may be open to debate. Yet one fact remains difficult to dispute: in the run-up to his expected talks this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Donald Trump is clearly seeking to shape conditions that would produce outcomes favourable to the United States — particularly in the strategically important sphere of global transport and logistics.
The views expressed by guest columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.