And the icing on the whole damnable cake is the US strong-arming Pres Z on holding elections and a referendum. Gross blackmail and for what? Trump is about as likely to keep his word as Putin.
So what this says is that Zelenskyy is the warrior president that Trump fears and cannot defeat. Additionally, Zelenskyy is one of the few leaders in this world who has the resilience, along with the Ukrainians, to push back on the invasion from Putin. It seems that it doesn’t take a lot of gold leaf on the walls to make you an incredible leader!
"Trump could care less". I don't think Trump could care less about European defense. I think Trump actually could not care less than he does (roughly zero, from all appearances).
They know precisely how bad Trump and his possible successors are. They are simply hoping and betting that MAGA will fall and the U.S. will return to being an ally. It is pointless to argue that Trump is a Putin stooge - they already know this. Rutte and so many others are lying about the current state of affairs in order to avoid the pain of separation.
One point they are sincere about is their complete lack of self-confidence. I think they have talked themselves into believing that creating a bulwark against Russian aggression is too hard. It's the politics of the situation more than the production hurdles. It is hard to lead a population that is tempted by easy answers.
The past year, many analysts have told us that Rutte and Von der Leyen and associates have been brilliantly stringing Trump along. The theory being that they were playing for time, using Trump in a long term strategy of independence. Rutte is telling us now that this interpretation was bunk. They are legitimately paralyzed by fear. I saw Alastair Campbell & Rory Stewart explain that U.K. politicians are not even willing to make concrete plans to allow a 10 or 15 year transition away from the U.S. possible.
This whole essay is comforting to me despite its grimness. It is a relief for someone of stature to make these arguments so well.
Now that Lavrov has mewed about the U.S. reneging on their ‘Anchorage deal’ to give the Donbas to the Russians, the cat is well and truly out of the bag.
One of the problems of the "Europe cannot defend against Russia without US support" thesis, is that the US was (at this very moment) not able to defend itself against Russia.
US policies at the moment go glaringly against the US interest, and very much in the Russian interest. Whatever the reason for it, the US already PROVED helpless.
Probably nothing more than vested interest, at least on Rutte’s part. As soon as Europe does decide to take care of its own defence then NATO largely becomes irrelevant, and Rutte loses influence and likely his job.
With the latest polls of various European countries, the unpopularity of the US is increasing. As soon as the politicians realise that moving to a defence stance that doesn’t involve America would be popular, we will see the likes of Rutte and the others sidelined. It’s just a question of how long it takes for the penny to drop, hopefully it’s sooner rather than later. We must also do our part by letting our representatives know what we would like them to do otherwise they won’t hear us and will assume that Rutte’s position is the prevailing view.
I of course hope you are right. Anti-U.S. feelings don't necessarily translate to a willingness to shift priorities from butter to guns. Look at Spain, they have long resented the U.S. but are comfortable with free-riding where possible. But you are talking about taking NATO leadership. Perhaps public resentment engendered by Trump will help.
Europe is not a country. The EU has limited powers. Until now the US WAS indeed the European defense. The US is incomparably more power than any European country and has no historical baggage. There's simply no alternative leader in Europe. There's hardly precedent of successful huge coalitions in Europe. The Entente worked, but it was just two countries holding their own portions of the Western Front. In WWII the whole Western Front was under American command.
Who would be in charge now? Germany is more powerful than others but not by that much, and its hegemony would invoke certain memories. There's still the free rider problem. E.g. the French population has seen the map and knows that in order to get to France, the Russians would have to march across the entire Germany, with the Germans presumably mightily resisting. There's no way the French will agree to retire a couple years later just to contribute more to joint defense (besides, the French have islands in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, territory in South America and interests in the former colonies in Africa, so the French military is never going to be geared toward a land war in Europe). The Germans will surely resent having to retire several years later than the French while giving them a free ride. In fact the joint European defense effort may put serious strain on the EU, perhaps even break it up. Europe defending itself will in practice mean Germany defending itself first and Europe second. The question is just where in Central Europe the Germans will decide to draw the line. They might as well decide that the Vistula makes for a great defensive line, and if the Poles want to defend the lands to the east of it, they are free to try on their own.
There's also the small matter of the adage "the US innovates, the EU regulates". Europe would have to change its mentality and the entire approach to the economy to restart innovation necessary for being fully autonomous in defense matters. But the European populations are used to their social programs, long vacations, short workdays and being totally disconnected outside work hours. It will be very hard for them to recreate the Silicon Valley culture. The French and the Spanish will be asking why the have to do that to protect Germany and Poland.
Yes! Just watch Politico Live for the bickering between von Leyen and EU state leaders. At least Germany does not plan to invade France and Poland, so we have that going for us
I've never watched that. But I've been to enough work meetings to know how decisions by committee work (or rather don't). That's why Ike agreed to become Supreme Commander only on condition that he would have full undivided control and make all final decisions. NATO Supreme Commander (Ike was the first) makes all decisions and has only US SecDef and President above him. European coalitions do not have very glorious history, especially against a single determined enemy. Anti-Swedish coalition finally worked after two decades of war. The final (of eight or so) anti-Napoleon coalitions finally worked. The Entente worked after the US joined. And that's about it.
“It will be very hard for them to recreate the Silicon Valley culture.”
I don’t think that we (I’m European) have any need to “recreate the Silicon Valley culture” exactly. But we certainly have a great need to create regional centres of innovation with highly entrepreneurial (sub)culture(s).
It is important to think about why this hasn’t happened yet to the extent that we need it, besides the obvious cause of Silicon Valley being so very attractive to both the specific kinds of people who drive such innovation and entrepreneurism, and to related capital. (An attractiveness which is declining due to current events, but not totally gone yet.)
I don’t think that being “used to their social programs, long vacations, short workdays and being totally disconnected outside work hours” is in any way relevant to the people who really matter for this.
It's difficult to fire employees in Europe. It's hard to run startups in such situation, especially when you just have to take a risk by hiring people who may or may not be able to do some innovative thing you need them to do. Short hours, the right to disconnect, high taxes (to finance those social programs) do not help either.
Those ‘social programs’ are why Rutte thinks it’s impossible for EU to go it alone. By free riding off the US for defence, especially since 1991, Europe has established a ‘cradle-to-grave welfare state’ utilizing would-be defence spending for social programs. If push came to shove I think the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Spanish etc would abandon Ukraine in a minute if it meant giving up subsidized health care, education, daycare, dental care, extended maternity leave, (and paternity leave) indexed pension benefits for civil servants, and guaranteed maximalist union rights. If a lot of these benefits have to be given up in order for the state governments to redirect funds to defence budgets then I think these countries would suddenly lose their support for Ukraine. I hope I’m wrong but Europeans have had these rights for so long they feel it’s a human right and entitlement.
The collective cross-European will to fight would depend on the amount of external pressure applied to the large individual countries, for example ballistic missiles destroying energy grids in Paris, Berlin, Warszawa etc. in January. An aggressor would of course be aware of this, and apply destruction to the weaker members of the pack.
I don't think it would even come to that. The likeliest result of the European defense project is AfD government. The Germans will resent the French free riding at their expense that they'll elect AfD-BSW-Linke coalition which will argue for just resuming trade with Russia. They'll say that Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were part of Russia for centuries and in recent decades have been persecuting their Russian minorities. So their trouble with Russia is their problem, and accuse the democratic forces of simultaneously wanting to send young German to soldiers to those countries and to make them feel guilty for the things their great-grandfathers allegedly did while serving as soldiers in those same places. So basically the countries to the east of Germany (that used to be parts of the Russian Empire) will be advised to set up governments more friendly to Russia, while the countries to the west of Germany will be feeling safe behind it. Le Pen may also become president on the wave of nationalist reaction to German demands to spend more on the military and send ground troops to defend Central Europe. Of course, Farage will then be vindicated and become PM by pointing out that he was very right when speaking of the EU as a basket case and triggering Brexit.
Yes, you are right. Bardella is the RN future now. I really meant RN in general. One of the advantages of the US leadership is that resentment of the US (rather than of other European countries) is not at all incompatible with European integration. The Europeans who love to hate the US may in fact see the EU as a rather useful outlet for their feelings, as it can stand up to the US much better than individual countries.
I recall reading about a (tiny) youth movement wanting to merge EU into a proper federation. It would take external pressure similar to the temperature inside a nuclear fusion chamber to start merging the European atoms, I suppose.
The fact that Europeans have been happily dependent on a largely benevolent power in the past is not a good argument for retaining the dependency. The Republican party has morphed into an authoritarian movement that is hostile to liberal democracy in Europe. They are likely to retain a predatory character for a generation.
You worry about the rise of the AfD. How does Europe depending on the champion of the AfD fix that vulnerability? There are risks in every direction.
The challenge of Europe developing into a self-defending federation is daunting. You call it impossible. OK, i see the argument. Clinging to the past is doomed.
The most plausible alternative is dependence on the benevolence of a much weaker power that twice in the last century went on a rampage in Europe and in which the most popular party holds a rather nuanced view of those rampages and is also quite friendly to Russia. Then there's an island nation near Europe in which the most popular party wants to have nothing to do with Europe. There's also a formerly greatest power on the continent that peaked over two centuries ago (and caused everybody else to gang up on it), where retirement at the ripe old age of 62 is held sacred, the workweek is 35 hours and it takes a year to fire an employee. Oh, and the most popular party there is populist nationalist and used to borrow money from Putin.
With all that (and more), blind faith in American support looks like the most realistic option. I'm not at all saying that the Europeans should just do nothing. They must do everything they can - among other things, that will also help retain American support.
MAGA is at war with Europe. Trump sees Europe exactly as he views Democrats: the enemy. Trump is forming a partnership with Russia that will keep Europe divided and weak. You are asking Europe to help Orban & Putin succeed.
I don't agree that Europe is doomed to its past character - including recent past like Bosnia.
Europe does not have any option to help keep the U.S. on board. Well, other than to surrender to the far right, which is not impossible. Those two national security documents were accurate reflections of U..S. intentions.
Europe should prioritize their own arms industry. The alternative is to live as vassals of the U.S. and Russian aggressirs.
Very good points, alas. The only country preparing towards the danger from Russia seems to be Poland. The Poles really hate the Russians but they don't like the Germans either, for some good reasons, eg Nordstream.
An additional problem with Rutte's argument is that he assumes the necessity of a European force structure like that of the US. With regard to nuclear weapons for instance the US is muscle bound; if we launch even half of our arsenal it will result in a global climate catastrophe; if the Russians respond in kind we are in a 3-4x overill situation. The nuclear arsenals of the UK and France are sufficient to extinguish Russia as an economy, and probably as a civilization (to the extent that they can be viewed as one). Europe needs to build up using lessons from Ukraine and not the US.
Trump will be gone relatively soon but the 40% of Americans who still support him will be around for decades or even centuries. Trusting the US in the meantime would be stupid.
Probably (I hope) Rutte is dissembling and knows the truth but doesn’t want to provoke Trump. On the subject of European military strength, I heard Giuseppe Conte, a former prime minister of Italy, say that someone should convene the military leaders of Europe with the object of forming a real European army to eliminate duplication and to standardize manufacture if the weapons needed. If he still believes that, I don’t know, but it seems a good idea but difficult to achieve given the current state of an almost non existent real federation. But your point that Europe can afford to defend itself is correct. The leaders though must explain to the voters why it is necessary. Russia is a poor country, vast in size, but with a gross national project equal to that of Italy. This last fact is all that is necessary to understand the stupidity in the assertion that Europe needs the USA to defend itself.
Many thanks for this analysis. It is indeed infuriating that Rutte should go out of his way to downplay Europe's capabilities, but since he referred to Trump as "Daddy", it has been clear that for reasons best known to himself ( afraid of Trump's wrath, of losing his job ? ) he has gone all out to appease Trump and claim that the US is fully committed to NATO and to a fair and lasting peace in Ukraine. The argument is becoming increasingly threadbare and flies in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
However, it is not clear to me that most European leaders agree with him, despite the quote you share. The Ukrainians are henceforth under no illusion that Trump is on their side and EU leaders (France , Germany, UK ) are not far behind, even if none is willing - yet - to say so publicly. And even more so since the threats against Greenland, voices are being raised in some of the legacy press (for a change) about Trump's links to Russia and his de facto support of Putin. There are even suggestions (cf. Gideon Rachman's recent article in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/b491c7a9-dd82-4752-a2f0-36454c729c61) that Trump's regime will not last and will eventually come to be seen "as an aberration and not a permanent shift"
None of this should stop Europe (EU and non EU + Canada and now Japan) from pressing ahead with their "strategic autonomy" advocated by Macron and increasingly backed by other leaders. Even if the pace of progress is too slow, particularly for Ukraine, there are many positive signs and reasons for optimism.
I look forward to the moment that a European leader finds the courage to take Rutte down a peg or two !
I am very surprised at these remarks, especially by Mark Rutte..Sounds like he``s spending too much time with J.D. Vance Europe`s GDP is not far short of that of the USA, especially if you add in Norway and the UK. If you add in the immense debt of the USA in a world that is losing trust in America its strength is questionable. The EU also has debt, but at a considerably lower level and, I can`t be certain of this, but my impression is that it is being dealt with more responsibly than in the USA. My impression is that very few European journalists (and I include the UK) really have intimate knowledge of just how much the European countries have improved our military strength. Particularly in air power Britain and France would be more than a match for Russia as I understand it. I want Europe including UK and Norway to continue building our defences but I don`t want our increasing capability to be advertised to Russia. I am happy with well-informed reports from military specialists who are not yelling from rooftops.
I haven't seen this covered in U.S. media but the Telegraph reported: U.S. handed control over a NATO base in the U.S., the Atlantic Command in Virginia, and two NATO bases in Italy and the Netherlands to the Europeans. European commanders will now lead Nato’s three joint force commands at an operational level. tRUMP is turning over the keys to NATO and walking away. Wonder what Mark Rutte has to say now:
The Telegraph had an excellent comparison of NATO forces with and without U.S. participation vs russia and here's the bottom line: NATO has more people and weapons than russia even without the U.S participation. NATO has 2.11 million troops, russia has 1.5 million, NATO has 8 thousand military aircraft, russia has 4 thousand and NATO has 6.86 thousand tanks, russia has 5.75 thousand. I believe Mark Rutte plays the "good cop" while NATO nations can play the "bad cop" when it comes to criticizing tRUMP. Rutte knows the U.S. remains critical in supplying Patriot Missiles since there's no effective alternative to downing russian ballistic missiles. So he's playing a role and buying time and weapons for Ukraine. But NATO can effectively fight without the U.S. and that should be widely communicated:
Europe lags behind Russia in mid-range and long-range missiles. (cruise and ballistic) Which is surprising considering they’ve had 4 years to catch up.
Truly amazing how one person elected by a small majority of angry, uninformed and or complacent individuals having been manipulated by a greedy power hungry handful using the tools that dominate public discourse (MSM + social media algorithms) have managed to undo a 250 year old democracy and completely unravel a hard won 8 decades of prosperity and peace in such an incredibly short period of time.
Is not the value of the US presence in Europe in the uncertainty it inevitably must create in Putin and Russia’s mind? So long as there as significant US forces in Europe, Putin cannot know how the US will react and behave if he were to attack a European country - with or without NATO. This is a powerful deterrent.
In more normal circumstances yes but we cannot exclude the US using this leverage to actively damage Europe. While there is a great deal of sense in wanting to keep the US engaged in Europe by hook or by crook the danger is in never adapting to looking after our own security without the US. In a way it's awkward still having the US in NATO when it's clear the US does not give a fig about European security but is transactional at best and exploitative at worst.
It is worth considering that US investment in Europe totals around $3 trillion. Is any sane American administration going to allow that to be destroyed? I am hoping that a sane administration will appear again in Washington. There are also around 5 million U.S. citizens living in Europe. I think it is quite necessary for Europe to act on the assumption that America will not help since currently sanity is not an obvious part of American government thinking but its days are surely numbered.
Putin's problem is that he does not know where Trump's redlines are. In part because Trump does not know himself. Sure, Trump is unlikely to defend Estonia. But what about Germany (where his grandfather came from) or Norway (from where he wants more immigrants)? There's also an issue of Trump looking weak. Also, Trump is sensitive to stock and bond markets. A giant drop may force him to act.
Trump’s red lines, ultimately, are public backlash, as in ‘Streets of Minneapolis.’ The ground is shifting here in the USA too, and we liberals have a failed generation of Democrat ‘leaders’ to reckon with.
Is there a mechanism to have Rutte removed? It might not be approved by the US but if available it should be invoked none the less so he understands how wrong he is.
Frankly, Rutte is part of the problem as we as all like him! If Europe were so “poor me” we cannot defend ourselves, I offer Greenland as Exhibit A to the contrary! Denmark, France, UK, Canada all stepping in and say, “Try me!” My god even Spain has committed to Greenland (not troops but diplomatic support).
Utterly infuriating. Not only is the US not our friend, the jury is out on whether it's even a neutral state.
Indeed it is. Rutte blithely assuring the EP that Trump was committed to European defense was frightening. At best, Trump could care less.
And the icing on the whole damnable cake is the US strong-arming Pres Z on holding elections and a referendum. Gross blackmail and for what? Trump is about as likely to keep his word as Putin.
Trump and Putin are intertwined on their desire to get rid of Zelensky--its been their first priority from the moment Trump became president again.
Yes. Zelensky, after all, triggered Trump’s first impeachment. Revenge is Trump’s biggest motivator, along with greed.
So what this says is that Zelenskyy is the warrior president that Trump fears and cannot defeat. Additionally, Zelenskyy is one of the few leaders in this world who has the resilience, along with the Ukrainians, to push back on the invasion from Putin. It seems that it doesn’t take a lot of gold leaf on the walls to make you an incredible leader!
"Trump could care less". I don't think Trump could care less about European defense. I think Trump actually could not care less than he does (roughly zero, from all appearances).
They know precisely how bad Trump and his possible successors are. They are simply hoping and betting that MAGA will fall and the U.S. will return to being an ally. It is pointless to argue that Trump is a Putin stooge - they already know this. Rutte and so many others are lying about the current state of affairs in order to avoid the pain of separation.
One point they are sincere about is their complete lack of self-confidence. I think they have talked themselves into believing that creating a bulwark against Russian aggression is too hard. It's the politics of the situation more than the production hurdles. It is hard to lead a population that is tempted by easy answers.
The past year, many analysts have told us that Rutte and Von der Leyen and associates have been brilliantly stringing Trump along. The theory being that they were playing for time, using Trump in a long term strategy of independence. Rutte is telling us now that this interpretation was bunk. They are legitimately paralyzed by fear. I saw Alastair Campbell & Rory Stewart explain that U.K. politicians are not even willing to make concrete plans to allow a 10 or 15 year transition away from the U.S. possible.
This whole essay is comforting to me despite its grimness. It is a relief for someone of stature to make these arguments so well.
It's not a neutral state. Trump's America is Putin's partner in dividing the world and seizing the spoils of weak states.
Now that Lavrov has mewed about the U.S. reneging on their ‘Anchorage deal’ to give the Donbas to the Russians, the cat is well and truly out of the bag.
One of the problems of the "Europe cannot defend against Russia without US support" thesis, is that the US was (at this very moment) not able to defend itself against Russia.
US policies at the moment go glaringly against the US interest, and very much in the Russian interest. Whatever the reason for it, the US already PROVED helpless.
Probably nothing more than vested interest, at least on Rutte’s part. As soon as Europe does decide to take care of its own defence then NATO largely becomes irrelevant, and Rutte loses influence and likely his job.
With the latest polls of various European countries, the unpopularity of the US is increasing. As soon as the politicians realise that moving to a defence stance that doesn’t involve America would be popular, we will see the likes of Rutte and the others sidelined. It’s just a question of how long it takes for the penny to drop, hopefully it’s sooner rather than later. We must also do our part by letting our representatives know what we would like them to do otherwise they won’t hear us and will assume that Rutte’s position is the prevailing view.
I of course hope you are right. Anti-U.S. feelings don't necessarily translate to a willingness to shift priorities from butter to guns. Look at Spain, they have long resented the U.S. but are comfortable with free-riding where possible. But you are talking about taking NATO leadership. Perhaps public resentment engendered by Trump will help.
Europe is not a country. The EU has limited powers. Until now the US WAS indeed the European defense. The US is incomparably more power than any European country and has no historical baggage. There's simply no alternative leader in Europe. There's hardly precedent of successful huge coalitions in Europe. The Entente worked, but it was just two countries holding their own portions of the Western Front. In WWII the whole Western Front was under American command.
Who would be in charge now? Germany is more powerful than others but not by that much, and its hegemony would invoke certain memories. There's still the free rider problem. E.g. the French population has seen the map and knows that in order to get to France, the Russians would have to march across the entire Germany, with the Germans presumably mightily resisting. There's no way the French will agree to retire a couple years later just to contribute more to joint defense (besides, the French have islands in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, territory in South America and interests in the former colonies in Africa, so the French military is never going to be geared toward a land war in Europe). The Germans will surely resent having to retire several years later than the French while giving them a free ride. In fact the joint European defense effort may put serious strain on the EU, perhaps even break it up. Europe defending itself will in practice mean Germany defending itself first and Europe second. The question is just where in Central Europe the Germans will decide to draw the line. They might as well decide that the Vistula makes for a great defensive line, and if the Poles want to defend the lands to the east of it, they are free to try on their own.
There's also the small matter of the adage "the US innovates, the EU regulates". Europe would have to change its mentality and the entire approach to the economy to restart innovation necessary for being fully autonomous in defense matters. But the European populations are used to their social programs, long vacations, short workdays and being totally disconnected outside work hours. It will be very hard for them to recreate the Silicon Valley culture. The French and the Spanish will be asking why the have to do that to protect Germany and Poland.
Yes! Just watch Politico Live for the bickering between von Leyen and EU state leaders. At least Germany does not plan to invade France and Poland, so we have that going for us
I've never watched that. But I've been to enough work meetings to know how decisions by committee work (or rather don't). That's why Ike agreed to become Supreme Commander only on condition that he would have full undivided control and make all final decisions. NATO Supreme Commander (Ike was the first) makes all decisions and has only US SecDef and President above him. European coalitions do not have very glorious history, especially against a single determined enemy. Anti-Swedish coalition finally worked after two decades of war. The final (of eight or so) anti-Napoleon coalitions finally worked. The Entente worked after the US joined. And that's about it.
They managed to stymie Trump's attempt to annex Greenland (for the time being, at least)?
But Trump was just trying to bully them. And they threatened to dumb a couple trillion dollars worth of US bonds.
“It will be very hard for them to recreate the Silicon Valley culture.”
I don’t think that we (I’m European) have any need to “recreate the Silicon Valley culture” exactly. But we certainly have a great need to create regional centres of innovation with highly entrepreneurial (sub)culture(s).
It is important to think about why this hasn’t happened yet to the extent that we need it, besides the obvious cause of Silicon Valley being so very attractive to both the specific kinds of people who drive such innovation and entrepreneurism, and to related capital. (An attractiveness which is declining due to current events, but not totally gone yet.)
I don’t think that being “used to their social programs, long vacations, short workdays and being totally disconnected outside work hours” is in any way relevant to the people who really matter for this.
It's difficult to fire employees in Europe. It's hard to run startups in such situation, especially when you just have to take a risk by hiring people who may or may not be able to do some innovative thing you need them to do. Short hours, the right to disconnect, high taxes (to finance those social programs) do not help either.
Those ‘social programs’ are why Rutte thinks it’s impossible for EU to go it alone. By free riding off the US for defence, especially since 1991, Europe has established a ‘cradle-to-grave welfare state’ utilizing would-be defence spending for social programs. If push came to shove I think the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Spanish etc would abandon Ukraine in a minute if it meant giving up subsidized health care, education, daycare, dental care, extended maternity leave, (and paternity leave) indexed pension benefits for civil servants, and guaranteed maximalist union rights. If a lot of these benefits have to be given up in order for the state governments to redirect funds to defence budgets then I think these countries would suddenly lose their support for Ukraine. I hope I’m wrong but Europeans have had these rights for so long they feel it’s a human right and entitlement.
On this very subject is a fresh Politico piece on Merz being whipped for complaining that Germans must work more.
Let us exploit US AI services to replicate US SaaS mastodonts.
The collective cross-European will to fight would depend on the amount of external pressure applied to the large individual countries, for example ballistic missiles destroying energy grids in Paris, Berlin, Warszawa etc. in January. An aggressor would of course be aware of this, and apply destruction to the weaker members of the pack.
I don't think it would even come to that. The likeliest result of the European defense project is AfD government. The Germans will resent the French free riding at their expense that they'll elect AfD-BSW-Linke coalition which will argue for just resuming trade with Russia. They'll say that Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were part of Russia for centuries and in recent decades have been persecuting their Russian minorities. So their trouble with Russia is their problem, and accuse the democratic forces of simultaneously wanting to send young German to soldiers to those countries and to make them feel guilty for the things their great-grandfathers allegedly did while serving as soldiers in those same places. So basically the countries to the east of Germany (that used to be parts of the Russian Empire) will be advised to set up governments more friendly to Russia, while the countries to the west of Germany will be feeling safe behind it. Le Pen may also become president on the wave of nationalist reaction to German demands to spend more on the military and send ground troops to defend Central Europe. Of course, Farage will then be vindicated and become PM by pointing out that he was very right when speaking of the EU as a basket case and triggering Brexit.
You are preaching to at least one choir member here, Andrew, realistically of course, not in a normative manner.
I unfortunately agree about your AfD scenario, perhaps less so with Le Pen as she likely (?) must give way to Bardella in 2027.
Farage, yes he will turn to whichever arguments that sticks to the walls of his base, both own citizens and current related European parties.
Yes, you are right. Bardella is the RN future now. I really meant RN in general. One of the advantages of the US leadership is that resentment of the US (rather than of other European countries) is not at all incompatible with European integration. The Europeans who love to hate the US may in fact see the EU as a rather useful outlet for their feelings, as it can stand up to the US much better than individual countries.
I recall reading about a (tiny) youth movement wanting to merge EU into a proper federation. It would take external pressure similar to the temperature inside a nuclear fusion chamber to start merging the European atoms, I suppose.
Yeah, it sounds like (un)sci-fi. Nationalism is the reason nation-states exist in the first place.
The fact that Europeans have been happily dependent on a largely benevolent power in the past is not a good argument for retaining the dependency. The Republican party has morphed into an authoritarian movement that is hostile to liberal democracy in Europe. They are likely to retain a predatory character for a generation.
You worry about the rise of the AfD. How does Europe depending on the champion of the AfD fix that vulnerability? There are risks in every direction.
The challenge of Europe developing into a self-defending federation is daunting. You call it impossible. OK, i see the argument. Clinging to the past is doomed.
The most plausible alternative is dependence on the benevolence of a much weaker power that twice in the last century went on a rampage in Europe and in which the most popular party holds a rather nuanced view of those rampages and is also quite friendly to Russia. Then there's an island nation near Europe in which the most popular party wants to have nothing to do with Europe. There's also a formerly greatest power on the continent that peaked over two centuries ago (and caused everybody else to gang up on it), where retirement at the ripe old age of 62 is held sacred, the workweek is 35 hours and it takes a year to fire an employee. Oh, and the most popular party there is populist nationalist and used to borrow money from Putin.
With all that (and more), blind faith in American support looks like the most realistic option. I'm not at all saying that the Europeans should just do nothing. They must do everything they can - among other things, that will also help retain American support.
MAGA is at war with Europe. Trump sees Europe exactly as he views Democrats: the enemy. Trump is forming a partnership with Russia that will keep Europe divided and weak. You are asking Europe to help Orban & Putin succeed.
I don't agree that Europe is doomed to its past character - including recent past like Bosnia.
Europe does not have any option to help keep the U.S. on board. Well, other than to surrender to the far right, which is not impossible. Those two national security documents were accurate reflections of U..S. intentions.
Europe should prioritize their own arms industry. The alternative is to live as vassals of the U.S. and Russian aggressirs.
Good points but I think the Poles and Baltics will work very hard to be the Germans new best friends
Very good points, alas. The only country preparing towards the danger from Russia seems to be Poland. The Poles really hate the Russians but they don't like the Germans either, for some good reasons, eg Nordstream.
just a small example of the discussions today.
Everyone: EU must be more competitive
Macron: EU must take up more common debt.
Merz: EU must increase productivity.
An additional problem with Rutte's argument is that he assumes the necessity of a European force structure like that of the US. With regard to nuclear weapons for instance the US is muscle bound; if we launch even half of our arsenal it will result in a global climate catastrophe; if the Russians respond in kind we are in a 3-4x overill situation. The nuclear arsenals of the UK and France are sufficient to extinguish Russia as an economy, and probably as a civilization (to the extent that they can be viewed as one). Europe needs to build up using lessons from Ukraine and not the US.
Trump will be gone relatively soon but the 40% of Americans who still support him will be around for decades or even centuries. Trusting the US in the meantime would be stupid.
Probably (I hope) Rutte is dissembling and knows the truth but doesn’t want to provoke Trump. On the subject of European military strength, I heard Giuseppe Conte, a former prime minister of Italy, say that someone should convene the military leaders of Europe with the object of forming a real European army to eliminate duplication and to standardize manufacture if the weapons needed. If he still believes that, I don’t know, but it seems a good idea but difficult to achieve given the current state of an almost non existent real federation. But your point that Europe can afford to defend itself is correct. The leaders though must explain to the voters why it is necessary. Russia is a poor country, vast in size, but with a gross national project equal to that of Italy. This last fact is all that is necessary to understand the stupidity in the assertion that Europe needs the USA to defend itself.
What Europe can’t afford is to tolerate people in leadership positions saying the kinds of things that Rutte is saying.
Giuseppe Conte non ci crede affatto, non perde occasione per cercare di eliminare gli aiuti militari all'Ucraina.
Many thanks for this analysis. It is indeed infuriating that Rutte should go out of his way to downplay Europe's capabilities, but since he referred to Trump as "Daddy", it has been clear that for reasons best known to himself ( afraid of Trump's wrath, of losing his job ? ) he has gone all out to appease Trump and claim that the US is fully committed to NATO and to a fair and lasting peace in Ukraine. The argument is becoming increasingly threadbare and flies in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
However, it is not clear to me that most European leaders agree with him, despite the quote you share. The Ukrainians are henceforth under no illusion that Trump is on their side and EU leaders (France , Germany, UK ) are not far behind, even if none is willing - yet - to say so publicly. And even more so since the threats against Greenland, voices are being raised in some of the legacy press (for a change) about Trump's links to Russia and his de facto support of Putin. There are even suggestions (cf. Gideon Rachman's recent article in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/b491c7a9-dd82-4752-a2f0-36454c729c61) that Trump's regime will not last and will eventually come to be seen "as an aberration and not a permanent shift"
None of this should stop Europe (EU and non EU + Canada and now Japan) from pressing ahead with their "strategic autonomy" advocated by Macron and increasingly backed by other leaders. Even if the pace of progress is too slow, particularly for Ukraine, there are many positive signs and reasons for optimism.
I look forward to the moment that a European leader finds the courage to take Rutte down a peg or two !
I am very surprised at these remarks, especially by Mark Rutte..Sounds like he``s spending too much time with J.D. Vance Europe`s GDP is not far short of that of the USA, especially if you add in Norway and the UK. If you add in the immense debt of the USA in a world that is losing trust in America its strength is questionable. The EU also has debt, but at a considerably lower level and, I can`t be certain of this, but my impression is that it is being dealt with more responsibly than in the USA. My impression is that very few European journalists (and I include the UK) really have intimate knowledge of just how much the European countries have improved our military strength. Particularly in air power Britain and France would be more than a match for Russia as I understand it. I want Europe including UK and Norway to continue building our defences but I don`t want our increasing capability to be advertised to Russia. I am happy with well-informed reports from military specialists who are not yelling from rooftops.
I haven't seen this covered in U.S. media but the Telegraph reported: U.S. handed control over a NATO base in the U.S., the Atlantic Command in Virginia, and two NATO bases in Italy and the Netherlands to the Europeans. European commanders will now lead Nato’s three joint force commands at an operational level. tRUMP is turning over the keys to NATO and walking away. Wonder what Mark Rutte has to say now:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/573148a6430970b1
Slava Ukraini!
The Telegraph had an excellent comparison of NATO forces with and without U.S. participation vs russia and here's the bottom line: NATO has more people and weapons than russia even without the U.S participation. NATO has 2.11 million troops, russia has 1.5 million, NATO has 8 thousand military aircraft, russia has 4 thousand and NATO has 6.86 thousand tanks, russia has 5.75 thousand. I believe Mark Rutte plays the "good cop" while NATO nations can play the "bad cop" when it comes to criticizing tRUMP. Rutte knows the U.S. remains critical in supplying Patriot Missiles since there's no effective alternative to downing russian ballistic missiles. So he's playing a role and buying time and weapons for Ukraine. But NATO can effectively fight without the U.S. and that should be widely communicated:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/ea8b46fa9fe03f16
Slava Ukraini!
Europe lags behind Russia in mid-range and long-range missiles. (cruise and ballistic) Which is surprising considering they’ve had 4 years to catch up.
they are catching up and fast, by the years end europe could be delivering their own european made patriot missals to ukraine
That would be so excellent.
Truly amazing how one person elected by a small majority of angry, uninformed and or complacent individuals having been manipulated by a greedy power hungry handful using the tools that dominate public discourse (MSM + social media algorithms) have managed to undo a 250 year old democracy and completely unravel a hard won 8 decades of prosperity and peace in such an incredibly short period of time.
The Russians must love this. Europe can and must do better. Until Trump is out of the White House, Europe will have to protect its own interests.
Europe should always protect its own interests. Over reliance on the U.S. is a fundamental error.
Is not the value of the US presence in Europe in the uncertainty it inevitably must create in Putin and Russia’s mind? So long as there as significant US forces in Europe, Putin cannot know how the US will react and behave if he were to attack a European country - with or without NATO. This is a powerful deterrent.
In more normal circumstances yes but we cannot exclude the US using this leverage to actively damage Europe. While there is a great deal of sense in wanting to keep the US engaged in Europe by hook or by crook the danger is in never adapting to looking after our own security without the US. In a way it's awkward still having the US in NATO when it's clear the US does not give a fig about European security but is transactional at best and exploitative at worst.
It is worth considering that US investment in Europe totals around $3 trillion. Is any sane American administration going to allow that to be destroyed? I am hoping that a sane administration will appear again in Washington. There are also around 5 million U.S. citizens living in Europe. I think it is quite necessary for Europe to act on the assumption that America will not help since currently sanity is not an obvious part of American government thinking but its days are surely numbered.
Given how Trump has acted, Putin clearly knows how Trump will act. So me one instance where Trump has not backed down when dealing with Putin.
Putin's problem is that he does not know where Trump's redlines are. In part because Trump does not know himself. Sure, Trump is unlikely to defend Estonia. But what about Germany (where his grandfather came from) or Norway (from where he wants more immigrants)? There's also an issue of Trump looking weak. Also, Trump is sensitive to stock and bond markets. A giant drop may force him to act.
Trump’s red lines, ultimately, are public backlash, as in ‘Streets of Minneapolis.’ The ground is shifting here in the USA too, and we liberals have a failed generation of Democrat ‘leaders’ to reckon with.
Is there a mechanism to have Rutte removed? It might not be approved by the US but if available it should be invoked none the less so he understands how wrong he is.
Frankly, Rutte is part of the problem as we as all like him! If Europe were so “poor me” we cannot defend ourselves, I offer Greenland as Exhibit A to the contrary! Denmark, France, UK, Canada all stepping in and say, “Try me!” My god even Spain has committed to Greenland (not troops but diplomatic support).