Walter Russell Mead in his Wall Street Journal column summarizes the “Trump policy” with respect to Europe as epitomized by Vice President JD Vance’s remarks to the Munich Security Conference:
Mr. Trump’s Europe policy is likely to have one of two outcomes. It could function as shock therapy, jolting Europeans into making the changes that could renew European strength and offering hope for a new and more realistic alliance. Or it could mark the beginning of the end of the trans-Atlantic community that gave Europe its longest era of relative peace since the peak of the Roman Empire.
Either way, the Trump administration’s first foray into European policymaking won’t be soon forgotten. Europeans now know that Charles de Gaulle was right, that the Continent cannot count on American blank checks forever. Let us hope that our shocked and angry European friends draw some wise lessons from a harsh week.
Actually, isn’t there a third alternative? I suspect that the Europeans’ reaction will be to attempt to go over Trump’s head via the American press. Expect a flurry of features on how wonderful the Europeans are, how awful Trump is, how vital to our security Europe is, etc.
I believe former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer’s observation about European leadership was correct. They have known what needed to be done for decades. They just don’t know how they will keep their jobs if they do what needs to be done. So they won’t reform. They’ll continue to assume that the U. S. will carry their water for them as long as it is humanly possible.
However, while we’re on the subject why should we continue to carry the Europeans’ water for them? Other than that we have treaties that say we will, of course. After all treaties come and go. The European Union (EU) has more than three times’ Russia’s population and nine times’ Russia’s GDP. The Europeans should be able to handle Russian aggression with, as Dr. Mead puts it, “nuclear backstopping” by the United States. Any present incapacity is completely voluntary on their part.
“They’ll continue to assume that the U. S. will carry their water for them as long as it is humanly possible.”
The problem with that assumption is China. The rise of China as a peer competitor to the United States means “as long as it is humanly possible” is pretty close at hand. From Pete Hegseth’s speech at the Ukraine contact group.
“We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail.
Deterrence cannot fail, for all of our sakes.”
Its not a matter of American perfidy or an individual politician’s vendetta, this is being dictated by the number of Chinese warships and the capacity of Chinese shipyards. I don’t think Hegseth’s speech is wrong on the realities on the ground on the balance of power.
Hegseth’s speech could end being regarded in the future at as a signal change like the UK-Japan treaty of 1902 and the Venuzeula affair around 1900 which were the manifestation of the UK reorienting the Royal Navy to deal with the German naval buildup.
Apparently Trump is riffing on Nixon’s ploy to separate China and the Soviets, only this time it’s Russia being courted. This is necessary if the US is going to move resources to East Asia. It will almost certainly fail. Too many US administrations and European countries have lied to Russia.
Another possible sign of an Asian adventure is the recent State Dept. revision to its description of Taiwan, which drops any mention of One China. Beijing has already protested. Having failed in Ukraine, the US is going to have a go at China. However, China is not a peer. In most categories, military, technology, manufacturing, etc., China is now the dominant power on the planet. Even Russia is superior to the US in most conventional and nuclear weapons. The Ukrainian war should have made that clear.
By the way, the idea ghat the EU combined economy is nine times Russia’s is utterly absurd. Russia has the fourth largest economy in the world, and Russians enjoy a First World life style. The EU combined economy is probably twice the size of Russia’s, and might be three times as big. Russia’s manufacturing sector is 40 to 50% of America’s, and larger than their EU’s, which anyway is in free fall collapse.
The combined Russian and Chinese manufacturing sector is two to two and one half times the US’. In ship building, both are much larger than the US.
In 410 CE, the Roman emperor, Honorius, with the Legions already vacated from Britain, told the British communities there to look to their own defenses. The Romans never returned.
To me it’s not a choice between the status quo vs the US withdrawing from NATO or ending alliances – it’s about rebalancing the relative burdens that come with any alliance.
There is no reason why Europe cannot take the lead in defense in that region with the US providing key enablers, the nuclear umbrella, and ready forces to able deploy during crises. The present situation, structurally unchanged since the Cold War where the US provides the bulk of day-to-day operational commitment, with most of Europe operating as a kind of strategic reserve, is not sustainable.
“There is no reason why Europe cannot take the lead in defense”
One reason that came to my mind is the individual countries in Europe at some level don’t trust each other on security issues. The Nordics, Poland, Baltics have some justifiable belief Germany would sell their security interests for commercial reasons. The Germans don’t trust the Poles won’t antagonize Russia excessively. The UK grand strategy for the past 500 years is to hedge against strong, centralized European power, (Spain, France, Germany, Russia, perhaps the EU). France has their history of being an ally but not-aligned.
Hiding behind American dictation hides the barrier to collective action due to distrust.
European countries may have no other alternative. To the best of my knowledge every wargaming of land war in Europe has found that Europeans must be able to hold their own against an invading Russian force for at least a couple of weeks to allow the U. S. to mobilize.
Of course, that assumes Russian invasion. If there is no threat of Russian invasion, NATO has no purpose.
That’s the argument against adding Poland to NATO. That particular die has been cast.