This reads rather like an alarmist climate document from the previous administration where we should anticipate New Orleans and New York submerged by the sea withing 20 years. That said. like climate change, the alarmist language doesn't mean it isn't happening. However, it does mean the pace and effect of change could be quite different than this strategy implies.
Let's deal with "de-Euroization" first. There are facts which go into this sort of analytical conclusion that are worth agreeing upon before reaching an immediate judgement of the validity of the strategy. Currently, the birthrate average across the EU among native born Europeans is 1.4-1.6. This has been true for several decades and is well below the 2.1 necessary population rate. Mathematically, at some point, native Europeans become extinct. Long before that happens, economies would crumble due to the collapsing labor force.
EU policy, resisted by only a very few European States, is to bridge that collapsing population gap with immigrants primarily from the Third World, a significant majority of whom are Muslim. Whether or not that is a meaningful "threat" to European culture is currently unknown. If the majority assimilate then Europe will gradually become a little darker and more religiously diverse, but would remain "European." If they do not, then not only will native Europeans gradually become extinct (remember, however uncomfortable, math is inexorable) but so would European culture as we currently understand it.
IF that is true, then the question for the West, and for the US specifically, is whether any of that matters and what if anything to do about it.
With respect to the bullet points specifically, the first one assumes there is general agreement that some sort of instability exists in Europe. For a nation only just recovering from BLM rioting and in the midst of the most divisive political environment since 1859, that is a rather bold accusation. Perhaps the US should focus on its own stability first.
Strategic stability with Russia has been the stated goal of every administration of both parties since the end of the cold war. We can all remember Hillary Clinton's reset button. Trump seems determined to embrace it as well regardless of the behavior of the dictator in the Kremlin. That likely will be a continuing source of diplomatic conflict with Europe.
The second point is a nicely packaged way of making wanning support of the Atlantic Alliance seem part of an actual logical strategy. That logic escapes me entirely. To me, and many other "internationalists" the surest way to strategic "stability" with the despot in Moscow would seem to be to convince him any geographic aspirations in Europe or threats to sovereignty are unobtainable. That is best done with a unified Western voiced through the Atlantic Alliance with its most powerful member exerting leadership.
The third bullet is the most concerning to me. That implies an activist US policy to undermine current European political choices. This is the sort of thing one would read in Johnson era document regarding Southeast Asia, a Regan era strategy document regarding Latin America, or a Strategy document from the Bush era concerning the Middle East. I would suggest the EU collectively and individual European states treat that with some alarm as should anyone in this country with a modicum of understanding of US national interests.
Taken together, this essentially reads that we intend to relinquish our leadership role in Europe to take on a completely contradictory role of creating political instability on the continent. Perhaps the Joint Chiefs and civilian leadership should start regular strategy sessions with their counterparts in Moscow to coordinate strategy.
I fear that it is only too accurate
European birth rate is, and has been for some time, below the 2 children average necessary to maintain a population
The economies of Europe are in decline
Propping them up with uneducated 3rd world peoples who represent a net economic loss is not a solution
The idea that Muslims will assimilate with a western culture is hopeful in the extreme
We are being destroyed from the inside by the left wing determined to undermine the capitalist way of life and replace it with a (hopeless) desire for a global socialism
What will actually happen, at best, is a fracturing of cultural, legal and political systems resulting in pockets of surviving groups based around a residual culture
At worst the Western, Christian culture will be over-run
If you in the USA think that you are immune from the catastrophe that is befalling Europe, I would suggest you look to history - it is littered with smug and failed empires
If I had any sense I'd leave the UK and accept the economic cost of moving
Business has taught me that, in a failing market, your first loss is your least loss
If I had the courage I'd take that loss and move
I have a US passport (thanks to a first marriage) - however, at 68 years old I'd not have the income and residual assets to prosper
I'm also reminded of many of my family and friends, when faced with a similar conundrum - first in Zambia, then Rhodesia and finally SA - was to ''keep moving South''
The west is in trouble - ''moving South'' is not a cure - merely an expensive postponement of the inevitable
Part of me feels like the German Jew of 43 - who knows that they should get out - but just hopes that all will be well
