In 1919, John Reed published Ten Days That Shook the World, an eyewitness account of the Bolshevik Revolution that soon became a bestseller. Reed was an avid communist and the book reflected his bias, but its title was apt: Events in Petrograd in early November 1917 had a lasting historical significance. More than a century later, we still live with its horrid consequences.

Less than a month after his second inauguration, President Donald Trump and his associates went one better. In one week—from Wednesday, Febr. 12 through Wednesday, Feb. 19—they made a series of moves which have changed the landscape of international politics beyond recognition. It was a truly breathtaking sequence which calls for a chronological summary.

Addressing the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels on Feb. 12, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that NATO membership for Ukraine was no longer in the cards, that its government should give up hopes of winning back all of its territory from Russia, and that Kiev should prepare for a negotiated peace settlement instead.

“The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement,” Hegseth told a stunned audience at NATO headquarters. Ukraine’s Western backers must abandon the “illusionary goal” of returning the country to its pre-2014 borders, he went on. “Members of this contact group must meet the moment.”

Hegseth further indicated that Trump is determined to get Europe to assume most of the financial and military responsibilities for Ukraine’s defense, including a possible peacekeeping force that would not include U.S. troops. The Defense Secretary added that such a force would not enjoy NATO’s Article 5 protections, which would require the U.S. or the 31 other nations of the alliance to come to their aid in case they clash with Russian forces.

More significantly still, Hegseth declared that he had come “to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” In his words, “The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must—and we are—focusing on security of our own borders.”

“NATO is in disarray,” commented the legacy media—accurately, for a change—but more was to come. Just hours after Hegseth’s speech, President Trump announced that he had a “lengthy and productive” telephone call with Russian president Vladimir Putin that morning and that U.S.-Russian negotiations to end the Ukraine war would start “immediately.”  

“We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s Nations,” Trump wrote in a summary of the 90-minute conversation, which he posted on Truth Social. “We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy, of Ukraine, to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now.” “President Putin even used my very strong Campaign motto of, COMMON SENSE,” Trump added. “We both believe very strongly in it.”

Zelenskyy would be “informed” of the conversation but not invited to take part in it. It seemed clear that the same would apply to America’s European partners. Within days they were faced with another unpleasant surprise. A bombshell, in fact.

On Feb. 14 Vice President JD Vance addressed the 61^st Munich Security Conference. His key point was that internal threats were the greatest dangers to European democracy, not external challenges from Russia or China. He singled out mass immigration as Europe’s most significant problem, asserting that it was caused by “conscious decisions” by European leaders.

Questioning whether the U.S. and Europe still have a shared agenda, Vance said that European democratic institutions and rights to freedom of speech were being undermined. He specifically accused European politicians of “cancelling elections,” referring to the annulment of the Romanian presidential election last December, following reports of an alleged Russian internet campaign to promote the independent candidate Călin Georgescu, who had come in first. Vance compared the annulment to Soviet-era practices.

Vance accused European leaders of using “ugly, Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation” in order to hide “old, entrenched interests” against alternative viewpoints that “might express a different opinion, or, God forbid, vote a different way—or even worse, win an election.” He emphasized the importance of democratic legitimacy and popular sovereignty. Clearly alluding to the Alternative for Germany (AfD), he argued that European leaders should embrace rather than fear public opinion, even when it challenges established positions:

If you are afraid of the voices, the opinions and the conscience that guide your very own people… If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter is there anything you can do for the American people.

He also criticized the European rhetoric of framing Western response to the conflict in Ukraine as a “defense of democracy,” in contrast to the infringements of democratic principles in Europe itself. After the speech it was confirmed that Vance had met the AfD leader, Alice Weidel, for 30 minutes, while declining the offer to meet the SPD leader and current chancellor, Olaf Scholz.

Most conference attendees sat stony-faced while Vance spoke. Some European officials expressed dismay. German defense minister Boris Pistorius said somewhat meekly that Vance’s comparison of Europe to authoritarian regimes was “not acceptable.” Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt called the speech “significantly worse than expected.” France’s leading daily Le Monde referred to Vance’s speech as a declaration of “ideological war” against Europe. Politico described the speech as a “wrecking ball” to the summit.

The Trump team was unimpressed with these reactions. On Feb. 16, on Face the Nation, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wondered why would “our allies or anybody” be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion—to be angry about it actually makes Vance’s point, Rubio said:

I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech, whether you agree with him or not… [H]e said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said… The United States has come under withering criticism on many occasions from many leaders in Europe, and we don’t go around throwing temper tantrums about it… The point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance of opposing points of view within Europe, and that’s of concern because that is… an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic union that everybody talks about…

A mere six days after Trump’s telephone conversation with Putin, on Feb. 18, Rubio met his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh. They agreed to start working toward ending the war in Ukraine and improving their diplomatic and economic ties. “In a remarkable diplomatic shift,” (in the Associated Press’s words), the two sides agreed to restore staffing at their respective embassies in Washington and Moscow, to create a high-level team to support Ukraine peace talks, and to explore closer relations and economic cooperation. The meeting was also meant to pave the way for a summit between Trump and Putin in the weeks ahead.

Rubio said the talks—which were attended by other senior Russian and U.S. officials—only marked the beginning of a conversation. Ending the war in Ukraine could “unlock the door” for “incredible opportunities” to partner with the Russians on issues of common interest “that hopefully will be good for the world and also improve our relations in the long term.”

Lavrov echoed Rubio’s remarks and told reporters that “the conversation was very useful.” “We not only listened, but also heard each other,” he said. “I have reason to believe that the American side has started to better understand our position.”

Zelenskyy was visibly offended. He stated that his country would not accept any outcome from the talks since Ukraine did not take part. European NATO allies have also expressed concern that they were being sidelined. Rubio responded that there would be “engagement and consultation with Ukraine, with our partners in Europe and others. But ultimately, the Russian side will be indispensable to this effort.”

Feb. 18 also saw an unprecedented back and forth between Trump and Zelenskyy. In a post, Trump called Zelenskyy a “dictator,” responding to a statement from the Ukrainian leader that claimed Trump was living in a “disinformation space” fueled by Russia. Significantly, Trump added that Ukraine “could have made a deal” with Russia and avoided the war.

Referring to the meeting in Riyadh, Trump noted the Ukrainians were upset about not having a seat at the table. “Well, they’ve had a seat for three years and a long time before that,” he said. “This could have been settled very easily.” “You should have never started it,” a visibly irate Trump added later. “You could have made a deal.” He also took Zelenskyy to task for Ukraine’s apparent lack of accounting for much of the money that had been poured into Ukraine by the U.S. and its allies.

On Feb. 19 Trump upped the ante. “A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left,” he wrote on Truth Social. Later in the day, while speaking to investors at a tech conference in Miami, Trump reiterated his previous comments. Yet again he called Zelenskyy a “dictator” and suggested that he wanted to prolong the war to “keep the gravy train going.”

Later that day Vice President Vance warned Zelenskyy against “badmouthing” Trump. “Everyone who knows the President will tell you that is an atrocious way to deal with this administration,” Vance said in his West Wing office.

All this amounted to a “breathtaking reversal in U.S. foreign policy,” according to CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria, and a legion of other mainstream pundits thought likewise. The British press claimed that Trump “appalled the world” with his attack on Zelenskyy. In reality, it is not “the world” but the European political class that is appalled. Germany’s lame duck chancellor Scholz called Trump’s comments “false and dangerous.” British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer supported Zelenskyy in a phone call to the Ukrainian president. His Swedish colleague Ulf Kristersson, among other lesser Euro-dignitaries, also criticized Trump’s use of the term “dictator.” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called Trump’s comments “absurd.”

The Europeans may huff and puff, but there is not much they can do. It is becoming painfully obvious that there is a new sheriff in town, as Vance somewhat unsubtly put it to his audience in Munich. This is a hammer blow to the arrogant comfort of the European elites. The web of lies in which Europe’s leading politicians, parties, and institutions have become increasingly entangled over the years has been torn apart.

As my Swiss acquaintance Roger Köppel noted in Die Weltwoche on Feb. 19, that is also the reason why they are now reacting with aggressive anger: They feel exposed, they feel the thin ice of their worldviews dissolving beneath their feet:

The war drums against Russia, the insane plan, which rebels against all historical knowledge, to defeat Russia militarily in its own backyard, inevitably turns out to be hollow, blind to history and dangerous to society… Thanks to the blatant irrelevance of the Brussels Eurocrats, it is also becoming clear that this conflict between Ukraine and Russia has always been, as we have written here, a proxy war between the American neoconservative war lobby and the resurgent Russia.

As Köppel correctly concludes, the entire EU-Ukraine policy is being exposed as the cynical disaster that it always was. Trump has recognized what the Eurocrats are still trying to deny: that Russia has won this war. At the same time the political and cultural winds are changing dramatically. The blind, self-righteous worship of leftist dogmas and taboos is now countered by a counterrevolution of sorts. It is throwing Europe’s calcified political class off track.

It is a marvelous spectacle. It is enjoyable no less than the helpless howls of rage of the Eurocrats’ counterparts across the Atlantic, whose leftist managerial state is being steadily dismantled as we speak.