From allies to adversaries: U.S. redefining their foreign relations

Seamus O’Sullivan - Contributing Writer

The latest installment of Monmouth College’s “Great Decisions” foreign policy series focused on the evolving relationship between the United States, Europe, and NATO. Led by Professor Mike Nelson, the discussion examined NATO’s, the role of the U.S. in global leadership, and the potential consequences of a shift in American foreign policy.

Nelson provided an overview of NATO’s formation in the 1940s as a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing its role in maintaining global stability. However, he noted that recent years has seen a shift in America’s stance towards the alliance, particularly under the Trump administration. “For the United States to leave NATO, it would mean leaving an alliance that we helped build… and that has been a major part of our architecture of foreign policy and relations with the world since that time,” Nelson said. He described such a move as “the most significant change that we could possibly make in our stance on world affairs.”

The discussion also addressed NATO’s evolving relationship with Russia. In the 1990s, there was consideration of Russia joining NATO, a seismic contrast to its current adversarial role. Nelson pointed to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s shifting perspective, explaining after returning to office, Putin sought to reassert Russia’s global influence. “He thought that Russia’s place in the world needed to change… something akin to the kind of strong and large territorial power that it had been under Peter the Great and the Soviet Union,” Nelson said.

Another key topic was the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy, which Nelson characterized as unilateralist rather than isolationist. While isolationism implies disengagement from global affairs, unilateralism suggests acting independently without consulting allies. “Trump is not staying at home,” Nelson said, citing the president’s rhetoric on foreign intervention and territorial claims. “It might be better seen at this point as unilateralist.”

Nelson said of the implications of a diminished U.S. leadership role on the world stage. “If the U.S. abandons its traditional leadership role… it weakens the possibility of the continuance of a world order that’s based on rule of law, support for human rights, and democracy,” he said. He acknowledged America’s historical inconsistencies in upholding these values, but cautioned stepping away from global leadership could result in a more volatile, power-driven international landscape. “At some point, it may end up at our doorsteps, and we may regret not doing more to make the world safer and more secure.”

The “Great Decisions” series next discussion will be March 19 led by John Glasgow, where he’ll examine US-China relations.