Opinion Sur
The change in the strategic posture of the United States vis-à-vis Europe under the hypothetical second administration of Donald J. Trump may backfire on the liberal, internationalist, and warmongering stance adopted by the United States at the end of the Cold War but which does not adjust to the current geopolitical reality. One of its consequences, not foreseen by the United States, would be not the disintegration of Europe but its emancipation from American tutelage.
___________________________________________________________________
In the current geopolitical context, which is both highly media-savvy and mediocre, it is difficult to distinguish a serious threat from a joke. The reflection is pertinent in the face of the possibility of Donald Trump returning to occupy the White House. Given his own indistinction between leader and clown (in both cases he is a dangerous subject), rather than being anxious about the prospect of his possible return to power, it is better to think about a potential strategic response by European allies.
Trump’s recent threat[1] to let Putin attack a NATO member if the Europeans do not increase their own military spending is certainly a danger, but it is also an opportunity for Europe: nothing less than negotiating a new rapprochement with Russia by expertly wielding both the carrot and the stick.
The U.S. push for a more compact and battle-hardened Europe (first under Trump and then under Biden) has achieved something positive: a more compact Europe can stitch up its current internal wounds by taking seriously its own dissidents (the right-wing populists) whose criticisms and protests are not all foolish. If the U.S. threatens to leave Europe, Europe must distance itself from the U.S. and change the strategic narrative.
Trump’s “threat” must be the occasion for a European return to a true and frank Realpolitik.[2] At the height of the Cold War, Henry Kissinger did it in favor of the United States, when he sealed a new understanding (detente) with the Soviet leadership[3]. The unavoidable step to achieve that ultimate goal of another Europe is to end the war in Ukraine with a compromise that lets the two warring parties save face. As Finland had to do at the time (1940), it is a question of surrendering some of its territory in exchange for the abandonment of any maximalist pretensions on the part of Putin. The main focus should be on rebuilding an independent Ukraine as a federation of variable ties, with European funds and some Russian investments. This is settled by a gradual laying down of arms and a new application of money. Gradual and sustained disarmament in exchange for greater economic interdependence. Stop waging war against each other in exchange for making money all together. The U.S. will have what Trump says it wants, but with a twist that they won’t like.
If the U.S. goes from using Europe as a battering ram and as a paid partner and more active in military spending (with Biden), to pretending to weaken NATO and divide Europe so that it “doesn’t bother” (with Trump), the emancipation of NATO’s European members from the United States (the organization could even change its name) must be creatively taken up by Europe and have as a counterpart a genuine security arrangement with the Russian Federation[4]. This implies abjuring on the part of the EU any appearance of “encirclement” of Russia, and on the part of Russia, abjuring all pretense of aggression in order not to be attacked. The ultimate and shared goal must not be the “Finlandization” of Europe but the “Europeanization” of Russia – apart from the United States.
Military budgets in today’s world according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies[5]
PPP: Purchasing Power Parity
The Americans accuse Europeans of being “free riders.” Let’s see: Europe’s supposed free ride in terms of military spending (Trump’s indictment) is a remnant of the Cold War. At the time, it was an arrangement that benefited both Europe and the United States, which used it as the first line of defense against the Soviet Union and prevented Italy and France from falling into communism. For their part, by coming under the U.S. nuclear umbrella and its powerful military budget, European countries were able to devote their resources – along with U.S. aid – to improving the standard of living of their population, which came to surpass the American way of life in quality of life, and by quite a distance, as attested by the immense tourist attraction of a “friendly Europe” for the North American public travelling[6]. Today, when U.S. hegemony is in decline, the protectionist impulse of Trump and his henchmen is compounded by the resentment of a sector of the U.S. population at the fact that many Europeans live better than they do. What they really want is to threaten and divide them in order to maintain their submission.
The European response must not be pusillanimous but emancipatory and defiant: use the recent strengthening of European NATO as a stepping stone towards a new direction in security and cooperation. To put it simply: Europe will cease to be a consumer of American security (or aggressiveness) and will become a provider of security, a position from which it will be able to negotiate a stop with Russia on the one hand and a greater distance from the US on the other. It will be able to set conditions on both fronts and make its own policy with China[7].
Will Europe be able to turn back the clock to a time when NATO was not the American warhorse to irresponsibly advance on the Russian security zone in Eastern Europe? It is far from certain today when Europe seems to be more tied than ever to the United States’ war bandwagon over the conflict in Ukraine. However, Trump’s staunch isolationism may inadvertently produce a healthy reversal of course. Let’s think (dream?) of an alternative.
The OSCE is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. With 57 states in Europe, Central Asia, and North America, the OSCE is the world’s largest regional security organization. Unlike NATO, the OSCE is concerned with security, conflict prevention, and in general the promotion of economic development, the sustainable use of natural resources, and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. In my utopian dream, an alternative to the current unstable “balance of power“, the successor to NATO as defensive alliance would join the OSCE tent as an armed wing, but with the aim of negotiating, from a position of strength, progressive international disarmament and peacekeeping in conflict zones.
Perhaps, in order to avoid a third world war, we cannot count on the goodwill or the correct vision of the current leadership, but we can expect that, from time to time, their mistakes will have as unintended consequences a more sensible result. Perhaps from the Far East, and particularly in China (for all its flaws and problems) comes the age-old lesson of Confucius with his insistence on harmony: to maintain a traditional strategic patience in the face of American political chaos.
[1] The White House and several European governments reacted alarmed to the Republican candidate’s words at a campaign rally, just as Russia increases its war offensive against Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOakgjuYZfg. This position is at the same time liberal, internationalist, and warmongering. It does not fit the current geopolitical reality.
[2] For a lucid exposition of the realist approach to geopolitics, see the interview with John Mearsheimer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huDriv7IAa0
[3] Kissinger maintained this preference for détente (rather than provocation) until the end of his long life. See about it https://www.infobae.com/leamos/2023/11/30/no-provocar-a-rusia-y-aprender-a-convivir-con-china-las-dos-advertencias-con-las-que-kissinger-insistio-hasta-el-final/
[4] Attempts in this regard were successfully sabotaged by the US, provoking the Russians into attacking Ukraine. See Jeffrey Sachs’ well-founded opinion on the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUifh-Wud4g
[5] I owe the reference of the painting to Juan Tokatlian.
[6] For example, see https://www.ricksteves.com/
[7] I dare say that such would be the position of Charles De Gaulle if he were alive.
If you liked this text, you can subscribe by filling out the form that appears on this page to receive once a month a brief summary of the English Edition of Opinion Sur
