Donald Trump, we are told, is"Stupid"、"Shameful"with"Non-Americans", at least that's what Biden ** said. Moreover, he is also a warmonger who is almost a war criminal, a global threat, he"intends to give Putin the green light to unleash more war and violence in Europe"。But what if Trump actually did the continent a favor?
When Trump bragged over the weekend that he would"Encouraged"When Russia attacked any NATO member that did not meet its defense spending quota, many came to a rather exaggerated conclusion: if he wins in November, the United States will withdraw from NATO. Then the Red Army will begin to march in Europe, while the United States will stand idly by. The era of the United States guarding the world will come to an end in one fell swoop. Inevitably, Trump's hysteria erupted.
Yesterday, the surprise was understandable when the majority of member states – 18 out of 32 – will meet NATO's target of 2% of GDP for defense spending this year. While this is hardly a substitute for the 80,000 U.S. troops on the continent, it undoubtedly shows that Europe is successfully building up its defense capabilities and preparing for a possible U.S. disengagement from Europe. Trump's inflammatory rhetoric suddenly became less harsh. In fact, some see these statements as a much-needed sounding for Europe"Alarm bells"。Does this mean that Trump's inauguration may be an opportunity rather than a threat to Europe?
I think the answer is neither. Even if accepted"The departure of the United States from NATO would spell problems for Europe"This questionable premise, and there is no evidence that Trump will actually withdraw from NATO after his re-election. In his tenure, Trump had described NATO as:"Outdated"and repeatedly threatened to withdraw the United States from the bloc, though he never did. For example, at a NATO summit in 2018, he slammed European leaders for not meeting spending targets and threatened that if military spending did not increase, the United States would"Go your own way"。But this did not happen, and he did not take any serious steps in this direction.
About Trump during his time in the White House"Alliance with Russia**Vladimir Putin", so his re-election will be"A gift to Putin"and other similar claims, which are also baseless. With Trump and Putin"Brotherhood"Contrary to the fictional narrative, Trump actually escalated U.S. military support for Ukraine; In fact, it was under his leadership that the United States for the first time began to equip Ukraine with ***. The US Naval Institute explained that this was done not only to arm the Ukrainian army, but also"Increase Ukraine's interoperability with NATO"。This suggests that Washington will begin to perceive Ukraine as a de facto NATO member, regardless of its official status. In addition, Biden recently hinted that Putin will see Trump's victory as a further invasion"Green light", which also conflicts with the obvious fact that Russia's invasion of Ukraine took place under Biden himself, not Trump. In short, it's hard not to conclude that Trump's critics envisioned it"Death to NATO"'s apocalyptic scenario is mostly based on fantasy.
But let's assume that Trump's critics are right, and if re-elected, he will withdraw the United States from NATO and destroy the transatlantic military alliance. Will this really be a tragedy for Europe, as the leaders of the continent say? Only when people believe the claims with rose-colored glasses, that NATO is pure"Defensive alliances", which is only the case when we are committed to peace and security in Europe.
It's just that the reality is very different. Far from being an equal alliance, NATO is one of the important institutions through which the United States controlled post-war Western Europe. As researchers Rajan Menon and William Ruger pointed out in a recent article:"NATO's continued existence ensures that Europe remains a strategic vassal of the United States, which explains why, while often complaining about the unfairness of burden-sharing, the United States has never demanded a significant increase in Europe's military power, let alone a Europe with its own defense policy"。Fittingly, it was the first NATO Secretary-General, Lord Ismay, who pointed out that NATO's purpose was"Don't let the ** people in, don't let the Americans in, don't let the Germans in"。
So, perhaps, we should not be surprised, this is exactly what the United States, through NATO, is trying to drag all of Europe into a ** war with Russia in Ukraine. It allowed the United States to reassert its waning hegemony in Europe; It has laid a deep wedge between Europe and Russia; It plunged Germany into a situation of deindustrialization.
Of course, we can say that this is largely the fault of European leaders. But it's also here"Alliance"natural results because"Alliance"European countries have always been considered subordinate. As shown this week, the result is that a naïve political class is terrified by the prospect of losing its transatlantic hegemon. This leads to another view: a more isolated United States under Trump would be an opportunity for Europe to finally develop its own strategic autonomy.
Under normal circumstances, this may be true. I have always believed that Europe needs to get rid of the geostrategic control of the United States. But this requires a truly autonomous vision of how Europe can ensure its own security and prosperity in a multipolar world. This would also mean that Europe would have to abandon the United States' treatment of non-Western powers during the new Cold War era and re-establish normal relations with its neighbor Russia.
Unfortunately, this alternative view is rare. With rare exceptions, Europe's political elites have internalized America's geopolitical strategy to such an extent that today they are even more Russophobic than their American political elites. And not only in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, which have long been wary of Russia for obvious historical reasons, but even in Western Europe. Therefore, it can be said"European NATO"More than the current US-led NATO, it wants to sow discord with Russia.
Thus, the epic clash between the post-war transatlantic order and the looming isolationism of the United States, which has been dubbed, is really nothing more than a minor disagreement as to whether Europe is preparing for war with Russia under the security umbrella of the United States, or whether it should go it alone. In any case, this war was considered inevitable. Biden and the Democratic establishment are leaning more towards the former, while Trump is leaning towards the latter. But both options would mean that Europe would be subservient to what the United States assumed"Collective West"interests, as a result, the future will be a permanent militarization of the new Iron Curtain and a permanent threat of nuclear war.
In fact, Trump himself wants a Europe that is militarily autonomous, not geopolitically autonomous; Think of his efforts to stop the construction of the Nord Stream pipelines. In this case, the EU should develop its own nuclear arsenal, with Germany playing the role of the American deputy in Europe. Such a suggestion is clearly far from reassuring.
This is not to say that all of Europe is willing to accept this reality. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is clearly opposed to the EU's military victory at all costs in his handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, has urged a diplomatic solution and friendly relations with the Kremlin. Meanwhile, in Germany, Sahra Wagenknecht has just formed a new left-wing party based on an alternative geostrategic vision of Germany and Europe as a whole. The party called for an end to the oil and gas embargo on Ukraine and Russia, as this is the main reason for the collapse of the German economy. At the same time, it also called for the restoration of long-term economic relations with Russia. Wolfgang-Strack writes that this has the potential to lay the groundwork for the creation of a new Eurasian security architecture and for:"A hostile division of Eurasia on the western borders of Russia provides an alternative"。
Stay away from the hysteria about Trump's re-election**, which is the debate we should be having in Europe. We have been embroiled in two NATO wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East, for which we have already paid a high economic and political price. At the same time, given that a conflict with China is as inevitable as a war with Russia, NATO is strengthening its presence in the Indo-Pacific region. It's nothing anymore"Great Power Politics", but madness. Whether Europe will succumb to this will depend more on the choice of our own leaders than on who ultimately comes to the White House.
Thomas Fazzi, February 15, 2024