As part of the program Regional Initiative to Combat Disinformation “Western Balkans Anti-Disinformation Hub: Exposing Malign Influences through Watchdog Journalism”, we present you a new monthly analyses of fake news and disinformation narratives.
Reporting by domestic media on the actions of the Trump administration and the “tightening” of U.S.-European relations
If we were to describe the state of transatlantic relations in just a few words, in light of U.S. actions less than three months into the term of the re-elected President Donald Trump, the most likely descriptions would be—turbulence, uncertainty, and growing mistrust.
The distinctly unilateral approach of the new U.S. administration, its reassessment or abandonment of certain pillars of the decades-long internationalist U.S. foreign policy, along with shifts in addressing key current issues of shared interest to both Europe and the U.S.—all of this collectively poses major challenges for the European Union and its member states.
Some of the steps taken by the Trump administration could have been expected and/or predicted, either as a continuation of policies from his first term or as a reflection of campaign promises—particularly regarding the prioritization of regions outside Europe, the redefinition of the U.S. security presence and posture on the European continent, and changes in U.S. trade policy aimed at achieving a “fairer distribution of the burden” of collective defense and balancing trade relations, with the intention of addressing, in the eyes of the U.S. administration, the country’s excessive trade deficit.
However, within the span of just a few weeks, the Trump administration introduced a series of extensive new tariffs that significantly affected the EU—ranging from tariffs on steel and aluminum to those on automobiles and auto parts, set between 20% and 25%. These were considerably higher than both initial expectations and the existing European barriers on imports of comparable American goods. This new approach—where tariffs, dubbed “the most beautiful word” in Donald Trump’s vocabulary, are increasingly treated as a unique political tool in response to various domestic and foreign challenges—culminated in the so-called “day of liberation,” when Trump announced practically universal tariffs on trade partners. Imposed arbitrarily and without solid economic justification, certain U.S. tariffs caused shock and drew criticism worldwide, sparked panic in the markets, and increased the risk of retaliatory tariffs and subsequent trade wars between leading global economic players, including the European Union.
On the other hand—taken as a whole—the administration’s withdrawal from or “dormant presence” in international institutions, its “flirtation with” or outright undermining of international norms and multilateral cooperation frameworks, and the cutting of international (development) aid have awakened unexpected or rarely voiced doubts about the global standing of the United States and the problems this poses in the context of global governance.
The explicit and increasingly frequent criticism of the European political establishment, coupled with (rhetorical) support for (far-)right and ultra-conservative parties in the EU by certain members of the Trump administration—such as the illustrative speech by Vice President Vance in Munich—suggests a more strained dialogue and a tenser cooperation at the highest levels than during Trump’s first term.
The central rift, however, between Trump’s United States and the EU and its leading member states seems to be emerging regarding the renewed efforts of the American administration to achieve a ceasefire and a (not very likely) peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Trump’s attempts to achieve a quick ceasefire, potentially within the first 100 days of the mandate (by freezing the conflict along the front lines and a series of concessions primarily on the Ukrainian side, as well as Russia abandoning some maximalist demands, along with ambivalent positions on future security guarantees and the refusal of possible American involvement), are met with disagreement and dissatisfaction from European states, and additionally fuel concern and doubts about the future of the European security architecture, but at the same time also strengthen calls for taking more adequate and more than a decade overdue efforts toward strengthening European strategic autonomy (including in relation to the U.S.).
Domestic media in Serbia report on these events—although not particularly frequently, considering that the central topics are the student and civic protests that have lasted for more than 5 months and the government’s attempts to “put an end to them”—and in the reporting of pro-government and pro-Russian media, exaggerated and sensationalist narratives still dominate, about the “permanent rift” between America and Europe, the “creation of (some kind of) new (European and international) order”; as well as established anti-European narratives, while the actions of the Trump administration, given that from the perspective of these media they are weakening the “West,” are even reported on favorably.
How do domestic media report on the “rift” between the U.S. and Europe?
The influential pro-government tabloid Informer has traditionally been among the loudest pro-regime media outlets in promoting anti-Western narratives. Thus, Informer headlines emphasize that “a deal has been struck with Putin… Europe is left alone, nothing will be the same again,” that “the West has finally cracked at the seams—leading American media have announced the breakup of the alliance between Europe and the U.S.,” or that “Brussels’ blood runs cold—they are enemies to Trump.”
This tabloid wrote that “U.S. President Donald Trump views the European Union as a political adversary and behaves accordingly,” also citing the assessments of certain officials that “many mistakenly underestimate the extent of the Trump administration’s hostility toward European institutions.” Informer also conveyed and “adapted” a foreign analysis, highlighting that “the rift between the United States and Europe has reached its peak after a fierce argument between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, effectively ending Western unity.” The article adds that “allies across the Atlantic have already come to terms with the end of a unified West” and concludes that all of this “marks the beginning of a new geopolitical era.”
In the context of the American administration’s efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russia relatively quickly—efforts in which the U.S. is entering with certain “concessions” to Russian demands, while sidelining European countries in the current phase of negotiations—Informer has emphasized in its articles that “Europe is left alone… European leaders fear that part of the potential agreement between… Trump and… Putin… could involve Russia taking advantage of reduced NATO presence in Eastern Europe, leaving Russia’s neighbors vulnerable.” In a similar tone are Informer’s hyperbolic claims that “America is withdrawing from Europe… Europe is alone and must arm itself.”
According to Informer’s interviewee, who provided a lengthy analysis of the current dynamics in European-American relations from a pro-Russian perspective, “the U.S. is pulling back, while Europe remains trapped in its own game.” Statements were relayed that “the American administration is withdrawing from the Ukrainian conflict because it no longer has an interest in funding it… Europeans know they have lost the war, but they cannot end the conflict, because that would also mean the end of enormous money flows.”
Other pro-government media have reported on the current strained relations in the same tone, also predicting—through anti-Western narratives—future consequences for relations between the U.S. and Europe. Kurir wrote that “Europe has for some time been gripped by fear that the U.S. might leave NATO,” relaying, however, claims that “Trump wouldn’t necessarily have to formally withdraw from NATO to break it apart—there are other methods,” and therefore predicting that “Trump could dismantle the large military presence that the U.S. military has maintained in Europe for decades without making any formal statements about NATO.” Večernje novosti, in a similar tone and focusing on NATO’s future, reported that “the North Atlantic alliance in its current form could cease to exist due to disagreements between the U.S. and its European members.” They highlighted the words of a former U.S. official, who said that “U.S. behavior toward Ukraine, as well as pressure on European allies… is stabbing the Alliance in the heart and raising the issue of mutual trust within NATO.” The Alo portal wrote about a “total showdown” and how “Europe’s worst fears have been confirmed” when it comes to U.S. foreign policy at the beginning of Donald Trump’s term.
It was to be expected that pro-Russian media in Serbia would write and “analyse” the tensions and political divergence between the U.S. and leading European countries with particular enthusiasm—especially regarding the approach to the war in Ukraine and the U.S. “pivot” toward Russia. Sputnik Srbija, the local branch of the Russian state media outlet, wrote about a “historic shift… (in which) liberals are pushing the world into war, while peacemakers are being called fascists,” claiming that “Trump and Vance are not militaristic… and when you look at the conclusions of the summits in London, Paris, and Brussels, it turns out that the European leaders are the ones advocating for the continuation of the conflict with Russia.” The same outlet triumphantly relayed claims that “NATO in its current form may cease to exist due to disagreements between the U.S. and its European members regarding support for Ukraine.”
Sputnik’s sources suggested—conveying typical anti-European narratives—that “the EU was created as a sort of… buffer zone for the American empire, and now that the empire has reached its end, it was to be expected that the family silverware would scatter.” “When you look at the relationship between the U.S. and the EU, it’s a family quarrel… both sides will lose in the end because this is a road of no return for both America and the EU,” the article’s author continued, adding that “Europe will only begin to feel the pressure of the Trump administration in the coming years.”
Another domestic branch of Russian state media—Russia Today Balkans—in its articles essentially presented the core views of pro-Russian circles on current events related to the U.S.–Europe–Russia triangle, as well as their maximalist expectations. Particularly illustrative is the headline “How a new world order is being created: the collective West is cracking at the seams.” The author believes that “Washington has abandoned Europe, and now Western unity is cracking… the collective West has begun to collapse and fragment into different political blocs,” and optimistically predicts that “this is just one of the signs indicating that a new world order is being created.” The article also observes that “Europe is facing an existential dilemma that goes beyond the issue of Ukraine… the U.S. refuses to fight in Ukraine, and Europe lacks the cohesion to take its place.”
Projecting the “hopes” of pro-Russian circles, the RT article predicts that, in addition to the “two poles” into which the West is increasingly divided, a new pole might emerge—“Eastern Europe led by leaders like… Orbán or… Fico.” A Russian philosopher and close political associate of the Russian president, in an interview with Russia Today, also pointed out—in a highly exaggerated tone—that “from the once monolithic and seemingly powerful collective West, only something much weaker remains.” He added that “Russia is not fighting the entire West, but rather the liberal-globalist elite, which is now in opposition in the U.S.… while in the EU, it’s the opposite, since the seat of the liberal-globalist international has moved to the EU,” and emphasized that fighting against this is “entirely feasible.”
The first three months since Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency suggest that this will be one of the most consequential terms of any American president in decades. The “chaotic” start to the second term, the fostering of growing distrust in transatlantic relations, and the creation and “export” of geopolitical and economic uncertainty have sparked intense expert, political, and media debates about the foreign policy positioning of Trump’s United States, the European Union’s response, and the future of the European and international order. The way in which pro-government and pro-Russian media dealt with these topics during the past March reflects deeply rooted anti-Western/anti-European/anti-liberal sentiments and, quite often, the projection of their own wishes regarding the “collapse of Western unity,” the “permanent weakening of the EU,” and the “creation of a new order.” However, the fact remains that they simultaneously underestimate the limits of the Trump administration’s actions, as well as the repeatedly confirmed notion that “every crisis also represents an opportunity”—in this case, an opportunity for strengthening European unity and assuming a greater role in foreign and security policy, as evidenced in the early stages by newly launched initiatives and new formats of cooperation at the European level.
Author: Igor Mirosavljević
