Sure, Vance was in opposition to Biden's former policies, but he is also a representative of the American state, and the state - when it wages some war in the world or subverts a country - bears responsibility. Vance as a politician is not a private person, but a representative of the US.

If European leaders had retained some vestiges of sanity, perhaps instead of hysteria they would have been capable of real and legitimate opposition that would have reminded them that the devastating war, climate or migration policies that have taken root in Europe have, to a large extent, their primary source in the US.

Since our progressive circles ignore the problem in Romania and regard the new US strategy as hostile, there is no one to name the responsibility of the previous US administration in the unprecedented disruption of the elections in Bucharest and the destruction of democracy in the EU country.

No hostility, but a warning

The fact is that the document does not talk about any hostility towards Europe, but rather about promoting European greatness as an ally (this chapter is called Promoting European Greatness).

Our domestic progressive circles describe this as hostile simply because the Americans have identified Europe's problems, which are obvious (from migration to climate to escalating risks towards Russia) and on which progressive policy is based. And since this policy is shaped in the manner of a religious creed, and the critic has long been branded an extremist, progressive minds cannot back away from it even when its destructive consequences become apparent.

Thus, in the last gasps of the withering beast, they have no choice but to kick around and demonise as "anti-European" anyone who draws attention to Europe's fatal failings.

The American documentary, however, is pragmatic. It says: 'American officials have become accustomed to thinking of Europe's problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. This is true, but Europe's real problems run deeper. Continental Europe [meaning without Britain, the closest US ally, ed.] is losing its share of world GDP - from 25 per cent in 1990 to 14 per cent today - partly because of national and supranational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness. But this economic decline is overshadowed by the real and more serious prospect of civilizational erasure."

The document is no fascist manifesto, and certainly not anti-European. It is a document of our strongest ally, which can no longer ignore how the European wing of NATO is hurtling towards disaster, with, naturally, consequences for the US.

All the more so if the political sphere in Europe is increasingly turning authoritarian, undermining political freedom and sovereignty and persecuting the opposition.

Migration policies are changing the continent beyond recognition and producing conflict. Together with demography and the loss of national identity, the US believes that in 20 years' time the continent is in danger of being changed beyond recognition. Hence the natural concern: "It is therefore far from clear that some European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies", with many countries "redoubling their efforts" on this road to hell.

The EU's lack of self-confidence and US recklessness

"We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilisational self-confidence and to abandon its failed focus on regulation and strangulation."

This sentence does not sound like a call to leave Europe.

According to the document, the lack of self-confidence is most evident in the relationship between Europe and Russia. The European allies have the upper hand in terms of hard power in addition to nuclear weapons, it says. As a result of the war, relations with Russia are weakened and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. "Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to restore strategic stability to the Eurasian landmass and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states."

"The United States' primary interest is to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine in order to stabilize European economies, prevent an inadvertent escalation or expansion of the war, and restore strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable Ukraine's post-hostilities reconstruction to ensure its survival as a viable state."

In short, the United States is thinking like a NATO leader who doesn't want war with a nuclear power, nothing more.

In the long term, US strategists consider it "more than likely that within a few decades at the latest, some NATO members will become majority non-European". Hence the logical concern about whether they will still see their place in the world in the Alliance.

It is in this section of the document that the fundamental difference in the US after last year's elections from the vision of the previous administration becomes most clear.

However, even this is very relative. Today, the US is naming the problem into which it has got us. It would be positive if they at least did not continue to do so, but that contradicts Trump's pressures for us to give up Russia's energy carriers and instead obediently take over America's.

This problem is also serious for Slovakia, despite the fact that Prime Minister Robert Fico has sought good relations with Trump and was one of the few leaders who supported his accession. Despite this, Slovakia has only obtained a one-year postponement in the negotiations with Hungary.

It was the United States that had long prevented cooperation between Russia and Europe (especially Germany). Indeed, Brzezinski's vision of American foreign policy assumed that such an alliance could turn Europe (Eurasia) into a great power and thus undermine the U.S. great power position in Europe. And this must be prevented. Trump does not appear to be backing down on this.

The war in Ukraine and the Middle East

A few points, however, name the diagnosis of contemporary Europe very accurately. "A large European majority wants peace, according to Americans, but this desire is not translated into policy, largely because of the undermining of democratic processes by these governments."

For the US, this is strategically important, especially because "European states cannot reform if they are trapped in a political crisis." However, the document declares that Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States.

"From manufacturing to technology to energy, European sectors remain among the strongest in the world. Europe is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions."

"Not only can we not afford to write Europe off," the US document concludes, "we will need a strong Europe to help us compete successfully and to work with us to prevent any adversary from taking over Europe."

Promoting patriotic forces and restoring stability in relations with Russia

What is causing consternation in Europe, however, is to be found in an entirely different sentence: "America encourages its political allies in Europe to support this revival of spirit, and indeed the growing influence of patriotic European parties gives cause for great optimism."

In short, the strategy document not only wants stability restored in the relationship with Russia, but also wants Europe to be able to "function as a group of united sovereign nations".

The US has a strong case for this, because it will enable Europe to 'assume primary responsibility for its own defence without being dominated by any hostile power'. However, this requires "cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations".

The US outlook towards the Middle East is also positive, showing signs of respect for the emerging multipolarism. "Our partners in the Middle East are demonstrating their commitment to countering radicalism, a trend that U.S. policy should continue to support.

To do so, however, will require abandoning the misguided American experiment in forcing these nations - especially the Gulf monarchies - to abandon their traditions and historical forms of government... The key to successful relations with the Middle East is to accept the region, its leaders, and its peoples for what they are, while working together in areas of mutual interest."

And that means abandoning the strategy of "decades of fruitless wars 'for nation-building'".