Donald Trump has won his third presidential election and across Europe heads are exploding. This should not be the case. Many European leaders were briefed earlier this year that a Trump victory was more likely than not. But wishful thinking appears to have defeated grim experience in many minds and many civil service buildings.
To hear the Europeans tell it, they are now confronted with a unique threat. The last time Trump was in office, Ukraine had been fighting Russia since 2014, but its survival was not hanging by a thread. It was not seriously likely that Russia would invade Moldova, Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, as now seems possible. Finland and Sweden were not Nato members, and could not therefore serve as the place Russia might deniably invade with mercenaries, or strike with missiles, in order to test the limits of Nato’s security guarantees. Now these things are planned for and, by the most depressive security officials, miserably awaited.
Europe shouldn’t have needed Trump to force them to wake up
With all this at stake, European leaders are talking a big game. In Brussels and Strasbourg, the magic phrase ‘strategic autonomy’ has new currency. In Paris and Berlin, men like France’s junior foreign affairs minister, Benjamin Haddad, talk on television of an almost American self-reliance. ‘We must take ownership of our own fate: invest in our defence, our competitiveness’, Haddad said.
Leaders from Emmanuel Macron to Olaf Scholz (who may soon be out of office) say they must work with Trump, but need also now to act more decisively in Europe’s own interest. But European leaders cannot define Europe’s own interests, let alone act energetically to protect and advance them.
Europe has had almost three years of war in Ukraine to teach them the necessity of standing on their own feet. Europeans have given more than Americans to Ukraine by most measures. More weapons, more practical support with refugees, significantly more money. Europe has had to deal with flows of migrants directed by Belarus like a dagger into the side of Poland. All of this ought to have focused minds. But has it?
Real strategy needs what theorists call ‘built strategy’. If a change in policy is not accompanied by major procurement advances, by putting up new factories, by sinking billions into research and development, it is not serious.
Some European countries have significantly increased their defence spending, such as Poland. But other countries are not so serious. The once-in-a-century German investment in defence (€100 billion), which was announced in February 2022 has not yet shown up. Many Europeans profess themselves impressed by Germany’s wartime defence minister, Boris Pistorius. But if German forces remain too wedded to manufacturing small numbers of exquisite, expensive systems rather than placing mass and fires in the field, what good can one defence minister really do?
Europe shouldn’t have needed Trump to force them to wake up to the reality of American foreign policy. The US has not really defended, in the long term, any of its allies in need since 2000. Georgia was invaded by Russia in 2008. America did nothing. Ukraine was invaded in 2014 and then 2022. America helped, but with no long-term plan. Joe Biden as well as Donald Trump would really rather Ukraine quietly disappeared.
Iraq’s post-Saddam government was surrendered to Iran with only mild diplomatic protests and the occasional missile thrown in tantrum. America did not lift a finger or trouble a hair to defend its Afghan ally as the Taliban advanced in August 2021 – in full view of American drones and satellites. Syrian rebels who were equipped by the American CIA were abandoned utterly to their fate a decade ago. Kurdish rebels in Syria’s north threw rocks at American vehicles as they ran away before a Turkish advance. The lesson is clear: do not trust the Americans. Never rely on them for a second, no matter who is in the White House.
The need for European self-protection is vital. But Europe is still governed as it has been for so long, by people who do not understand defence nor the need of it. Call it what you like. ‘Strategic autonomy’, a real ‘built strategy’, each remain unlikely.
Comments