Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January, many European observers have been in a state of wilful denial. They have been hopeful that Trump 2.0 would be largely the same as his first administration where the rhetoric was worse than the reality.
Their approach has been based on the assumption that a mixture of calculated deference, avoidance of a full-on trade war and increased commitments to Nato defence spending would keep Washington engaged in the defence of Ukraine against Russia’s invasion. And, crucially, it would preserve the American nuclear umbrella that has protected Europe since the end of the second world war.
But the US national security strategy for 2025, published on December 4, has blown those assumptions out of the water and forced America’s allies, particularly those in Europe, to confront a harsh new reality. Not only can they not count on the United States to be in their corner when the chips are down. They will have to allow for US indifference – even outright hostility – for the foreseeable future.
Since he came to power in January vowing to end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours”, the US president’s frequent pivots between Russia on the one hand and the status quo US policy towards Ukraine and its European allies on the other delayed the inevitable insight in major European capitals that Trump’s national security strategy provides. Now it’s clear: the transatlantic alliance that was the cornerstone of European security and underpinned the liberal international order has ceased to exist.
What has been revealed is a narrow view of American commercial interests. It’s a parochial 19th-century focus on the western hemisphere which avoids any recognition of the threat posed by Russia. The US under Trump has abdicated American leadership and rejects the idea of standing up to geopolitical challenges unless they are in America’s backyard or threaten US commercial interests.
Washington has turned its back on a longstanding alignment with its democratic allies in Europe and elsewhere. Rooted in the enlightenment tradition, this anchored the US and its erstwhile allies firmly in the rule of law in domestic and international affairs.
The ethno-nationalist, white supremacist and evangelical ideology of Trumpism articulated in the national security strategy only stands in sharp contrast to this past consensus and actively seeks to undermine it when it comes to Europe. The threat to European security is therefore not merely one emanating from the rupture of the transatlantic alliance. It also has the potential to accelerate further fragmentation inside Europe.
Trump’s comments in a recent interview with Politico that he would continue to back like-minded candidates leaves little doubt about the intentions of the Trump administration to interfere in European elections in favour of populist candidates that supposedly share Trumpist worldviews.
Wrecking ball
The Ukraine war is a perfect illustration of the volatility of US foreign policy under Trump. The US president has pursued an amateurish and egocentric negotiation process peppered with threats to walk away from the most severe challenge to international security in a generation.
Far from aiming to ensure security and the rule of law, Trump’s approach has clearly been driven by a desire for a plan that will enable the resumption of commercial relations with Russia and, he clearly hopes, involve some lucrative business deals – such as a possible revival of plans for a Trump tower in Moscow, something that was reportedly discussed by the Kremlin earlier this year as a way of cementing relations between the two countries.
Trump and his team fail to appreciate that the war in Ukraine is not simply an inconvenience. It is a profound long-term challenge to US interests. If Russia wins in Ukraine – on the battlefield or through a US-imposed peace deal – the Kremlin will have the opportunity to regroup and rearm. This would mean the continuation of an already intensifying hybrid war against Europe.
More likely than not, it would also embolden Putin to turn his sights on other parts of the former Soviet empire, for example by redoubling his efforts to destabilise Moldova.
Coalition of the willing
Trump has now openly turned against America’s erstwhile allies. The pretence that the US still backstops Nato’s security guarantee has become a fiction that, since the release of the national security strategy, is harder to maintain.
This leaves Europe in a difficult place. Both Nato and the EU struggle to speak with a single voice on existential issues. Governments in key European states – France, Germany, Italy and the UK, among others – are under pressure on multiple fronts. They are struggling to manage domestic crises from immigration to welfare reform at a time of rising populism. The bitter conflict in Ukraine, right on the doorsteps of Nato and the EU, adds considerably to this burden.
Efforts undertaken so far to strengthen Europe’s military and strategic autonomy can only go so far and so fast if they continue to depend on unanimity among member states. Finding the smallest common denominator to avoid dissenting states using their veto power often delays or waters down key decisions. This approach is unfit to deal simultaneously with a crisis of the current magnitude and the deliberate paralysis of the institutions that Trump and his allies are promoting.
A new “coalition of the willing” has gradually emerged from what might soon be the ruins of the European and transatlantic projects. If Nato founders, which is not now inconceivable, it may be Europe’s best hope of surviving in a world where it is no longer one of, or aligned with, the dominant great powers of the day. But for that to become a reality, the coalition of the willing needs to become a coalition of the able. And this is a test it has yet to pass.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU's Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
David Hastings Dunn has previously received funding from the ESRC, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Open Democracy Foundation and has previously been both a NATO and a Fulbright Fellow.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
