Buying Time: Europe’s Trump Dilemma
Europe finds itself squeezed between Putin and Trump. In this week’s Europe Dispatch, Minna Ålander explains how Europe is trying to deal with Trump.
Hello Everyone,
The latest halt in US military aid to Ukraine comes at the most cynical possible time, when Russia has intensified its air campaigns against Ukraine. Putin has made a habit of hitting Ukraine particularly hard every time after speaking with Trump. Europe’s ability to offset US hostility remains limited, unfortunately. A lot of good things are happening, such as the latest landmark agreement between Denmark and Ukraine to locate some parts of Ukrainian defence production to Denmark. Sweden is open for a similar arrangement. But these agreements will help Ukraine more in the long run, the short term remains very hard for Europe to deal with if the US wants to force Ukraine into a position of weakness.
The picture below illustrates the current transatlantic rift. Americans saw in it a bunch of weaklings huddled together to call “daddy”. Europeans saw a miracle of European unity: the leaders of Europe’s largest countries, the UK, France, Poland, and Germany, visiting Kyiv together in solidarity with Ukraine on the occasion of Europe Day (9th May).
Phillips and I will discuss all this and more this coming Friday, 11 July, in a Substack live - join us at 12pm ET/ 18pm CET/ 19pm EET!
Yours,
Minna
Buying Time: Europe’s Trump Dilemma
It’s a nasty experience to have an ally turn on you, especially if you have trusted them for 80 years. While everyone in Europe expected Trump to be difficult and disruptive, many were nevertheless surprised by the outspoken hostility of the likes of JD Vance. The reactions to Vance’s speech in February at the Munich Security Conference were quite universally negative in Europe and he even managed to alienate parts of the European far right (many, by the way, because of the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy that is simply unacceptable to Europeans, including the far right in many countries).
Since then, Europe has tried to figure out how to deal with Trump and his people. Attempts at sucking up have generated negative press among parts of the European public, but showing Trump the diplomatic middle finger is not an option either. Playing dead does not work as Europeans have had to try to speak for Ukraine after the White House ambush of Zelenskyy in March. That moment may have been THE breaking point for much of the European public. It’s hard to describe adequately the anger and outrage it caused.
Trying to pacify Trump with an infantile praise of sorts seems to be the solution Europeans came up with for the NATO summit in the Hague, which had massive potential to end up in complete fiasco. NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte, known in Europe as “Teflon Mark” for his invariable opportunism and immunity to criticism, took on the role of the “flatterer in chief”. Most people on both sides of the Atlantic found his “daddy” comment utterly tasteless, but Rutte himself recently commented on it in a New York Times interview: “I was prime minister of the Netherlands for 14 years, so I know about criticism, but I don’t care”. (You are now starting to get an idea of why the nickname “Teflon Mark”.) Jens Stoltenberg, Rutte’s predecessor, was so successful in his role because he is a skilled diplomat, and because he frustrated the Russians by being so pure that they had nothing on him. Rutte, on the other hand, is equally frustrating for the Russians, but mainly because he is so smooth that nothing will stick to him.
Essentially, what Europeans need is time. It is fair to blame especially Western Europe for having slept through all the wake up calls in the 3 years between Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s second term, but now Trump has jolted all Europeans into action (except, perhaps, Spain). In material terms, there is no reason for Europe to fail to decouple from the US. To quote a European defence industry representative, when asked what the US-provided capabilities are that Europe cannot replace, “there is nothing we cannot do, some things just take more time and cost more money”. Europeans have now committed to spending the money, what they need is more time.
That means, then, that the priority for Europe is to manage Trump in a way that enables an orderly burden shifting and postpones full American disengagement from Europe as far into the future as possible. I saw this post card with a drawing by David Shrigley and it perfectly summarizes the European approach towards Trump:
The stakes for Europe are incredibly high. Putin has already interpreted Trump’s actions as green light to do what he wants with Ukraine, and possibly also with the rest of Europe. This spring, Russia started building up infrastructure along the NATO border from Norway down to Finland and the Baltic states to connect logistics better. Now, Russia is building a whole new military town for an artillery brigade close to the Finnish border. This year, military recruitment in Russia spiked in March and April and slowed down again – perhaps because Russians believed that the war would soon come to a halt and they could simply cash in the recruitment bonus without having to go to the front. In any case it seems that both the Kremlin and Russians were somewhat confident that Trump will be able to coerce Ukraine into a bad deal. That has not happened so far, largely due to Ukrainian resistance with European support.
Europe has enough money, technological know-how, and even an industrial base that can be improved to meet the challenge of strategic autonomy. But it will not happen overnight, and Trump has opened a window of vulnerability. If Europe needs 5-10 years to become capable without the US, does it make sense from Putin’s perspective to give Europe that time? Therefore, the most important goals for Europe are currently to keep Ukraine afloat (air defence presents the greatest challenge, as I described here) and to avoid a disorderly US withdrawal from Europe. Russians should not rest too assured that the US is completely out. For Europe, the primary concern is to keep Russia where its current borders are. Trump is only a secondary concern, in terms of how his actions complicate dealing with the first concern.
It is in that context that Rutte’s recent NYT interview has to be viewed. While perhaps a distasteful read for an American audience, the Secretary General of NATO is the last person on Earth who will criticise the American president. His job is to keep the alliance together. It is the American people and institutions who have to stand up to Trump, not Europeans. Europeans do not have a vote in American elections and while Trump is nevertheless our problem too, we cannot solve it – the US, regardless of who its president is, remains our treaty ally, after all.
P.S. On Russia, Rutte said this in the NYT interview: “I know Sergey Lavrov very well. He has been foreign minister of Russia since the birth of Jesus Christ, and I’ve never taken him seriously. When you talk about fake news, listen to Sergey Lavrov.” It is a good reminder that Russia is our adversary, not the United States. NATO Secretary General is supposed to stand up to our adversary, not our ally.
Well done Minna. This is an excellent post and one that I agree with whole-heartedly. I've been saying that Europe needs time and that they have the measure of Trump. I couldn't have put Rutte's behaviour any better. It may be hard to accept but it is the clever play and Trump is too stupid to realise he is being played like a fiddle by both Europe and Russia.
If flattering the Toddler in chief without making major concessions brings good results, it's worth doing however bad it goes down with your domestic audience.
While I'm sure Putin and his mates have great ambitions of expansion into Ukraine and Europe there's the issue of whether they can do it. Russian military progress in the last two years has been very expensive and as far as I can tell pretty inconsequential (except for the unfortunate but smallish number of Ukrainians who had to leave). Putin gives no sign of wanting to stop, is spending far more than he earns (Russia's economy is his private piggy bank) and the sovereign wealth fund is getting steadily closer to exhaustion. When that happens things are going to get reallly interesting for the Russian war machine. Or boring. My guess is it will just seize up.
In sum, I think the Europeans should be very concerned about Putin and his ambitions but have cause to be a lot less worried than they needed to be 2-3 years ago.
Keep up the good work Minna. You're producing stuff well worth reading.