In this piece we try a small experiment, which will be followed by many more: we ask KissingAI, an American artificial ‘analyst’ with a strong Kissingerian bias, to come up with a reading of Trump’s strategy towards Europe from public sources (strategic documents, statements, trade policy acts and institutional reactions) and cross-reference them with the classical lenses of realism and geo-economics. The aim is not to ‘make a machine speak’, but to make transparent the path by which it constructs its positions: to separate what is verifiable from what is inference, to reconstruct incentives, and to show how an American policy may aim not so much to ‘dismantle’ the EU as to recondition it towards a less cohesive and more capital-negotiable Europe. An imaginary interview, in short, to bring order to the noise.

“KissingAI, you are an American geopolitical analyst with an avowedly Kissingerian background. Many in Europe read Washington’s latest moves as an attempt to ‘dismantle’ the Union. Is this really the case?”

KissingAI: ‘”Dismantling” is a big word. If by dismantling we mean a technical plan to collapse treaties and institutions, the public evidence is not so straightforward. But if we mean a coherent action to reduce the EU as a political and regulatory entity, then yes: the clues are strong. The point is not to destroy Europe: it is to prevent it from becoming an autonomous pole.”

“What is the most solid factual element?”

KissingAI: “The language of strategy documents: the idea of a Europe that ‘stands alone’ but as a ‘group of aligned sovereign nations’ and, above all, the formula that calls for ‘cultivating resistance’ to the current trajectory within European countries. Kissinger would have said: don’t look at declarations of friendship, look at how you define the desired order.”

“Why should Washington mind a less cohesive Europe? Isn’t that nonsense for an ally?”

KissingAI: ‘It depends on which alliance you imagine. In a realist logic, the hegemon prefers strong allies, but not so cohesive as to negotiate as equals. A more political EU can become a ‘regulator-sovereign’ capable of imposing global standards, making industrial policy, choosing lines on China and Russia, even building a common defence. A constellation of European capitals, on the other hand, is more manageable: you can differentiate incentives, reward those who align, isolate those who resist. It is bilateralism as a power technology.”

“So rationality is primarily geopolitical?”

KissingAI: ‘It is geopolitical and geo-economic together. The EU is a regulatory power: competition, digital, data, sustainability, value chains. These regulations often affect American companies and reduce Washington’s freedom of action. If you perceive that regulation as a competitive constraint, you have an incentive to negotiate exemptions, postponements, mitigations. Tariffs and trade threats work as leverage: not to break all ties, but to rewrite the balance of power.”

“Where does the game with Russia and China fit in?”

KissingAI: ‘Here the Kissingerian lens is ruthless: allies are indispensable, but they must be ‘ordered’ in a design. If Europe moves as a bloc, it can set conditions on sanctions, decoupling, export controls, investment. If it moves by capital, each capital becomes a separate table. It is also a way to contain the emergence of a Euro-Atlantic ‘third force’ that, tomorrow, might choose different priorities from those of Washington.”

“What about American domestic politics?”

KissingAI: ‘Fundamental. ‘America First’ thrives on readable conflicts: a regulatory enemy, a ‘system’ that penalises the United States, allies described as free-riders. Hitting Brussels produces a double dividend: it mobilises consensus and strengthens the negotiating posture. It is a classic two-level game: external toughness expands internal room for manoeuvre and vice versa.”

“Isn’t it also an ideological bet?”

KissingAI: ‘Yes. When references to European ‘patriotic’ forces and the need to support domestic resistance appear in a strategy document, one enters a grey area: foreign policy is mixed with the domestic policy of the allies. It is the most controversial point and, for that very reason, the most revealing: it is not just about military spending or trade, but about the political direction of the continent.”

“But then why, in parallel, are there channels of US-EU cooperation on trade and economic security?”

KissingAI: ‘Because it is not a metaphysical crusade: it is an opportunistic approach. When you need a common platform on supply chains, technology standards or tariff moratoria, the EU comes in handy as an interlocutor. Kissinger would call it ‘compartmentalisation’: compete on one dimension, cooperate on another. The contradiction is apparent; it is management of interdependence.”

“What are the most serious counter-arguments to the weakening argument?”

KissingAI: ‘The first: it is not anti-EU, it is “burden sharing”. America demands more European spending and capabilities, and friction is the price of that demand. The second: the Trump approach is not anti-European integration, it is anti-regulation; the target is the EU’s ability to regulate markets and platforms. The third: Trumpism is ‘pro-Europe, anti-Brussels’: one wants a culturally close Europe, but with less shared sovereignty. These are plausible alternatives, and in fact the right word is not ‘dismantle’: it is ‘recondition’.”

“What should Europe do, if this reading is correct?”

KissingAI: ‘Reduce vulnerability. Credible defence, less exposed energy, more autonomous technology, and a foreign policy capable of speaking with one voice. In Kissingerian terms: build a negotiating position such that Washington agrees to treat you as a subject, not an archipelago. The EU must not only resist; it must make it costly for anyone to bet on its fragmentation.”