Europe Signals Shift From NATO
Can it deter Russia without the United States?
My last post covered Ukraine with a focus on the dramatic U.S. foreign policy shift by President Trump in the first month of his second term. Events are moving with lightning speed, and this post will focus on the shift in foreign policy in Europe. The major states of Western Europe are now acting on the assumption that Europe can not count on the U.S. for its security.
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” - Vladimir Lenin
As expected, the German elections last week ended with a victory by the Christian Democratic Union party, the center-right party of Germany. Friedrich Merz, the incoming Chancellor, has stated that his greatest foreign policy priority is achieving the strategic independence of Europe from the United States. Merz is (or was) a committed transatlancticist. The fact that he is saying this is a sea change.
Additionally, UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer and French president Emmanuel Macron have signaled the same, with talk on getting tougher on European defense and placing troops in Ukraine. Certainly, the states of eastern Europe (Hungary excepted) who share borders with Russia or Ukraine are on board with this. It was always the nations of western Europe that had to go along. Germany has been the least willing partner, but now that has changed.
The Americans Dump NATO
President Trump has signaled that America is done providing Europe with blank-check security guarantees. He has gone yet farther by aligning with Russia’s view of the Ukraine war and seeking normalization and commercial deals with Russia as pre-emptive concessions.
This has crossed over from the president’s rhetoric into substantive diplomatic action. At the United Nations yesterday, the US sided with Iran, North Korea, and, of course, Russia to vote against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s Ukraine invasion on its third anniversary. Even China abstained.
The U.S. is explicitly aligning itself with the Russian position, even more so than the Chinese. Reportedly, the US pressured Ukraine to drop the UN resolution before it even came up to a vote. It also opposed a joint G7 statement condemning “Russian aggression”.
These actions are consistent with Trump calling the Ukrainian president a “dictator”. When asked in a meeting with French president Emmanuel Macron on February 24th, he refused to assign the same label to Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump conflates the personal with the political, so its very likely his first impeachment over halting Ukrainian aid plays a role.
Rather than being an expression of President Trump’s volatile personality, there is a pattern of actions to backup the idea that President Trump is, at best indifferent to the fate of the Ukrainians, and at worst sees concession to Russian demands as a way to quickly end the war. These actions have a substantive impact on policy, primarily through the reaction of our allies.
Europe Declares Independence
The changes to Europe’s approach to the U.S. are likely permanent. Europe will not want to put its security in the hands of an American electorate that re-elected President Trump and has turned hard, to an extent across both parties, against foreign entanglements. The shift towards the United States being a pole in a multi-polar strategic competition, though premature at this stage, is starting to come to fruition.
A central project of the Biden administration was attempting to organize this competition around America’s aspirational values. A coalition of democratic allies, accounting for 2/3rds of global GDP, was to set the terms of a rules-based international order. They were to compete with an emerging, but much weaker authoritarian axis over a set of non-aligned nations.
Donald Trump has exploded this approach with dynamite. Now, the United States is retreating from its alliance committments and claiming its own sphere of influence. Essentially, its using the rules the authoritarian axis was trying to establish and trying to beat them with it. With Trump’s statements about Greenland and an exploitative deal over Ukraine’s mineral rights, Europe now fears a two front strategic battle fending off both America and Russia.
Trump appears focused on making a quick deal and moving on. But, he is trying to have it both ways. A strategic pivot away from Europe also means the United States has less leverage. If aid from the US is going away regardless of the outcome, what need does Ukraine have to do what America says? Or Europe, for that matter?
Ukraine, and Europeans, are right to concede nothing publically before negotiations begin, and to toughen their stance leading up to negotiation. EU members announced greater financial assistance to Ukraine, and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen indicated Ukraine could join the EU before 2030.
In apparent defiance of the American position, the UK announced stronger financial sanctions and travel bans against Russian officials. Starmer, in anticipation of his meeting with Trump next week, indicated they would insist on concessions from Russia and the inclusion of Kyiv in negotiations.
And, in his meeting with President Trump, Macron discussed his idea of a European defense force in Ukraine, which would potentially be backed by only European troops in solidarity with the United States. Trump himself suggested that Russia might be open to this, but did not commit to anything. Macron also expressed his hope that the minerals deal could give the United States a stronger interest in Ukrainian sovereignty.
The Fate of Ukraine
Perhaps there is a method to the madness and there will be some grand bargain that ends the Ukraine war. Sometimes in diplomacy, you have to just suck it up and let bad people save face in order to accomplish something positive. But, there is a difference between letting the issue go and letting Russia erase history. The United States could have abstained on the UN resolution, but now it is actively going along with the idea that Russia did not start this war.
Maybe the newly signed minerals deal in Ukraine can act as a sort of U.S. security guarantee by tying American commercial interests in Ukraine. It could convince Putin not to advance beyond the current line of control. However, the US is also working on economic negotiations with Russia, and the minerals agreement was still signed under duress and does not resolve Ukraine’s security concerns.
How we are left at the moment, is the United States is normalizing ties with Russia and has voted its position at the UN simply for a promise to negotiate. Meanwhile, Ukraine has given a concrete concession, its minerals deal, in exchange for a promise that the U.S. won’t abandon them. The U.S. could, conceivably, use these ties as leverage over both countries, but Russia appears to be getting the better deal for the time being.
Europe, meanwhile, is organizing to ensure European security without the United States and signalling a tougher stance on Russia via new sanctions and security guarantees inclusive of boots on the ground in Ukraine. What this is a recipe for, at worst, is a continuation of the war, with Europe at a temporary disadvantage as it organizes. At best, it produces a ceasefire along the current line of control with both sides preparing for the next round.
And it leaves Trump playing both sides to America’s alleged advantage.
Putin has a habit of pursuing multiple strategic objectives simultaneously. Conquering Ukraine is, at the moment, unobtainable. The conditions to make it possible would require breaking up the coalition defending Ukraine. In any case, this would require ejecting the United States from Europe’s security architecture, which incidentally is yet another long-term Putinist objective.
A ceasefire and negotiated settlement gives Putin an opportunity to rebuild. It also gives Europe the opportunity to get its act together. But at that point, can Russia act fast enough and disruptively enough to, eventually, achieve its maximalist goals? The past few years might suggest yes.
However, he could be wrong, and his invasion and the American about-face could have polarized and galvanized Europe into forming a security block that is both strategically independent of the United States and capable of deterring Russia. For Putin and his neo-imperialist designs, that would be a strategic disaster.
But its up to Europe to prove him wrong.