There's a big silver lining to Trump. He's brutally honest, unlike most politicians. Sure, he tells dozens of lies every day. But he's refreshingly honest about who he is, and that's why he won two out of his three elections. He's not a hypocrite. He does not even try to pretend to be a good man. He does not go to church, does not quote the Bible, does not do good deeds, does not even hide his cruelty (in fact it's a big attraction for many voters). Unlike some others, the Trumps never put on a show in which Trump would say in pained voice that he strayed in the past and Melania would say that despite deep hurt from his totally unexpected unfaithfulness she fully forgave him because their love for each other is greater than all that. His defense against accusation of rape was not "I would never do that!" but "she's not my type". That was actually a lie, but a very revealing one.
Imagine if Trump was more circumspect about his dealings with Putin. Imagine if Vance smoothly delivered a bland speech full of platitudes about shared values and importance of alliances, only very gently chided the Europeans with a sole example of a praying abortion protester, denounced Russian aggression and atrocities (while sadly acknowledging the necessity of making unspecified compromises), and afterwards had polite conversations with Scholz and Merz. All that would have provided enough of a fig leaf for Germany and virtually all countries to the west of it to pretend that Trump's difference with his predecessors was more on style than substance, that all would be back to normal when Vance was elected president (or replaced Trump even sooner), and that Europe just needed to try to along with Trump.
But no, Trump, Vance and Musk did not even try to hide their sympathies for Putin and fascists. The Europeans can't pretend anymore that everything is OK. They may not yet do anything about it, but they can't complain later that they were deceived. Whatever happens now, is on them.
Quite. It is clear who the enemy is and it always has been for those who chose to see who Trump was (hint: exactly who he said he was). European leaders have been asleep or wilfully dreaming at the wheel. We have a lot to make up and time is short. But it can and must be done. We have to start now. Starmer schmoozing with Washington is quite the wrong approach. UK will be humiliated - of course - but eventually we will come round to see sense and join with our neighbours in Europe. It needs to happen sooner not later.
> But he's refreshingly honest about who he is, and that's why he won two out of his three elections.
This is clearly not the case. Trump said he had nothing to do with Project 2025, and that he didn’t know what it was. And yet he’s implementing it.
Rather, Trump tells his constituents what they want to hear. He’s only honest if you disregard every dishonest thing he’s said, and by that standard everyone is honest.
I mean that he is honest on a higher level. He does not even try to hide who he is. Unlike "traditional" politicians. Just a decade ago Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney were polished politicians, looking as insincere as everybody else in the profession. It took extreme circumstances for us to learn they were indeed different from many other Republicans. Trump has never been polished. He has always shown us his true self. And many voters were disgusted by what they saw. But many others found it refreshing and did not hold it against Trump, because they long suspected all politicians were like that and were just hiding that. Quite a few voters even liked that, as that's how they would love to behave themselves, if only they could afford it. The man has no shame. He's a bigot and he does not care that we all know that. He's a fascist and does not try to hide it. Even the Europeans cannot deny it now.
To better understand what I mean, just look at Marine Le Pen. She pretends not to be a bigot. Trump does not. He does not use a dog whistle - he uses a bullhorn.
Andrew, as usual: spot on (unfortunately). There’s been way too much pious waffling - on this sub-stack but more on others - lamenting about Trump et al., but precious little about WHAT TO DO! If you can, get this weeks The Economist. It’s a triumph of clear analysis and hard truths - time for Europe to get real but it will be expensive and hard, in fact a revolution. Hmmm….
Agreed, this is an ominous turn. A third world war seems quite certain now. There is no way that the EU can disregard Russia's aggression any longer, especially now that my government in the US is in the hands of neofascists.
Shocking to see those words in black and white, and hopefully not true, but surely the logic of Europe’s position is that pre 2014 Ukraine borders need to be re-established and Ukraine’s security guaranteed.
A new North Atlantic (but not US) Treaty Organisation. A European + Canada Defence Force.
I’m shocked to see myself forced into accepting the reality of this.
I have a 13 year old son. As Trump was winning, I had to assure my wife that I'll have enough money to smuggle our son out of the country if mobilization comes (Trump voters seemed to be oblivious that it would be their children and grandchildren having to fight to restore the world order, and that Trump considers them suckers and losers).
My fear is slightly different. My daughter is 14 of mixed race (her mother is Trinidadian) and she will be facing all sorts of discrimination for that as well as being a woman. We are looking at Canada (where I do a lot of work) or Spain (where my current wife is from) as places to go. I fear for your son and what is to come, Andrew.
Guys, I embrace your fears. I’m in Sydney (you may think that’s far away but wait until Trump shops us after 75 years of loyalty for a “deal” with China and renders us a vassal) but my daughter and 20-month beloved grandson are in Brooklyn. It won’t be him or your grandkids who do the fighting - the U.S. continent is huge and the enemy is distant - it will be all the peripheral allies’ children who do the fighting and dying. Such as Ukraine. The Trump and Kushner and Vance grandchildren will never be affected, any more than the Putin nomenklatura are.
Stefan Korshak was out with a pretty good substack yesterday about what the US military commitment is, which kind of debunks hegseths threats to pull out of Europe: the US has 3 combat brigades, one of which trains for desert warfare, about 12000 total. Plus another 65000 troops maintaing airports and the like. It has about 75 fighter planes stationed there and 100 sixty year old nuclear bombs designed to be dropped from planes. And that's about it.
Can Ukraine survive without US military aid? I think that's the big question. My impression (and I could be wrong since I'm no expert) is that it's mainly about the supply of artillery shells and replacing lost delivery systems. Let's see how serious Europe is about it's defense by stepping up there.
Europe still has no replacement for Patriot (IRIS-T is being improved but still doesn't have, nor will it have in the foreseeable future, the capabilities of PAC 3). And Patriot is just the little guy compared with THAAD and the new "AEGIS Ashore" systems installed in Romania and Poland. PAC 2 and PAC 3 missile production was ramped up in the US; I don't see quite the same production capability for air defense systems in Europe.
As for US capabilities in Europe...let me just add a pull quote from a DOD press release:
"Since February 2022, DoD deployed or extended over 20,000 additional forces to Europe in response to the Ukraine crisis, adding additional air, land, maritime, cyber, and space capabilities, bringing our current total to more than 100,000 service members across Europe. This included extending a Carrier Strike Group, deploying additional fighter squadrons and lift/tanker aircraft, and deploying an Amphibious Readiness Group and Marine Expeditionary Force. DoD added a Corps Headquarters, Division Headquarters, Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) battalion, and multiple enablers to the existing Corps Forward Command Post, Division Headquarters, and three BCTs already stationed in or deployed to Europe"
That just in addition to what's already there. The European Activity Set includes includes some 12,000 pieces of equipment, including tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and artillery.
Then there are facilities: Here's a partial list including just warehousing and storage. Too much to put in a post, so here's a DOD publication link:
In summary, I don't want to contemplate the fate of Europe if the US goes full asshole here. Europe isn't ready, doesn't have a plan to be ready, doesn't have the leadership to be ready -- and even if it had all those things it would take years to ramp up capabilities and actually be ready.
Personally, I would be very cautious about trusting most any American made weapons system where the "permission" to use it in ones own defense had to be granted by an administration potentially indifferent to ones survival. Even more so for a communication/intelligence gathering system (Starlink) that can be disabled by a disgruntled foreign individual who may not share your interests.
Thanks this assessment. However sombre, it is the truth. But let there be no mistake, what we are witnessing is not only the abandonment by the US of the post 1945 order in Europe but also, and this is even worse, the abandonment by the United States (and however many American are pained by this, Trump is the President of all Americans for the next four years) of the overriding principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law as Trump prepares to "negotiate" with a dictator who is a documented murderer, terrorist, indicted by the ICC for war crimes. If anything, this is more of a shock to the system than the fact that Europeans have been woefully slow in getting their act together on their own defence and security. However much the Europeans have been warned in the past year, did they really expect Trump and his administration to sink so low ? Many clearly didn't, as shown by their obvious disbelief at what they were hearing from Trump and Vance at the Munich conference.
Looking back at your premonitory piece of Feb 12th, 2024:
- On the institutional side, the UK will not rejoin the EU soon, that much is clear. But Starmer will be in Paris tomorrow, he will pledge to boost cooperation with other European states on defence and security and has said today that UK defence spending will rise significantly, overruling his finance minister.
- In the run up to the Paris conference and at the instigation of the US, European states are indeed completing an inventory of military resources that could be made available for Ukraine
-even if Scholz never relented about sending Taurus missiles, F16s have arrived in Ukraine and so have 4 (or 6?) Mirage fighter jets from France. More on the way.
- the "massive cooperation" on UAVs that you called for is happening as we speak, even if powers like France and the UK are loth to admit publicly that they have experts and special forces on the ground in Ukraine. There is the definite prospect of Ukraine winning this aspect of the new warfare.
-the "joint military commission" has passed from the Ramstein format to a new format under the current presidency of the UK.
- not sure by how much artillery production has been increased but we don't hear nearly as much now as we did a year ago about the lack of ammunition on the Ukrainian side. Perhaps because the importance of artillery has declined with the huge increase of drone deployment ?
- properly coordinated Intelligence gathering between European, from what we know, is still sorely lacking.
Overall verdict: can and must do more and more quickly ! All eyes will be on the Paris summit tomorrow.
I can't buy that, professor. They can't simultaneously want an organised Europe and also actively promote a nativist alt-rights European movement. Those two things are directly opposed to each other
They're demanding that Europe be fish AND fowl. I can't see how that's anything more than trying to pick a fight?
The nativist alt-right Europeans are explicitly disorganised. They fight each other. There is no "European" nationality. Vance appealing to these as a collective group of any kind doesn't work other than if they become clear "puppet regimes"
Aha, that makes sense yes. I'm not sure they even care about that. For all their "Christian ideals" they don't actually care about anything Christian.
I think they want to simply overhaul all trade agreements with Europe, to try to prop up the US for just a LITTLE bit longer and skim off the top themselves. That's what it looks like. It's not about Ukraine or Russia, it's about extractive capitalism.
The US has been de-industrialised and this has benefitted the few at the expense of the many.
But it's catching up with the US now, as it's effectively importing too much and "making" too little and exporting too little.
So the Trump / Musk playbook may well be to prop up this bad system (not exporting or building enough) by forcing it's trade partners to buy more American goods, through use of military might. Military might is one area in which the US is currently unmatched and able to basically get its way.
I hope the context of "prop up" is clear here: propping up a bad US industrial strategy. Again, for the benefit of the few and to the detriment of the country itself.
I think it's all about Trump's personal wants, both in regard to flows of money into his private pockets (he still owns less than certain billionaires) and in regard to flows of attention and submissive worship in response to what he says. I have seen no indication that he thinks at all about how his actions impact others.
We're 1 month in, and so much is happening so fast that I don't want to even think about what permutations are possible in a 2-year time frame. Could be that he's a lame duck, could be that he's an emperor!
But will he agree to sell weapons to Ukraine if Europe pays? That is the most important question. Money is important to him, and here were are also talking about manufacturing jobs, mostly in states that voted for him. Plus reduction of trade deficit with Europe! All that without any tariffs. The Europeans can further put more orders for themselves, perhaps order even more F-35s (not they won't need them if they want to defend themselves).
Canadians have made a drastic turn against the US in the past month with all the mafia shake down trade threats and 51st state talk. Trump wants us under his thumb, taking our resources and denying our own political agency. Back to imperialist and mercantilist thought structures. Canada is a willing ally of free Europe, alas there is no escaping geography. The post above noting US taking the western hemisphere, China the far east and Russia dominating Europe is a possible and frightening future.
There are millions of Americans who will...and do...side with Canada against the Trump regime. I have strong doubts that the American military would follow any orders to invade Canada, Greenland or Panama. It's much more likely that a "behind the curtain" threat to remove Trump for his unconstitutional actions would play out. I see that as a last ditch effort to save democracy in the U.S..
I think there is a serious reason for Europe and Canada to sit at the table and discuss a long term resource supply for Europe. 200 billion from Russia and all of it is exactly what Canada produces - Nickel, copper, oil, LNG, etc. Who would you rather have supplying you.
There is now for the first time in 60 years a discussion starting amongst rational liberal Canadians, about the reality of arming ourselves with nuclear weapons. It would be relatively simple for Canada to do and probably considerably cheaper than an equivalent conventional force, given the size of the landmass we have to cover. As a deterrent they are very effective i.e. Pakistan & N. Korea, both two of the world's most hopeless states but nobody bothers them a lot - just afraid of them.
Canadian here. I'd love new trade arrangements with Europe... I do not think the US will permit it. Still less would they permit us to acquire nuclear weapons... the invasion would start five minutes after they caught wind of any serious plan to do that.
We're hooped, and we should make plans to either emigrate to Australia or start learning the words to Star Spangled Banner (if we're lucky they'll let us be citizens).
I think what has hampered Canadians for far too long, is that the USA is convenient for us, so we have been really lazy about all kinds of innovations that could be ours to create and profit from. The second thing I think Canadians have always been, is afraid of poking the elephant next door because of that convenience - it might cost us somethiing. Well now the USA has told us in no uncertain terms, it won't protect us (stupid for us to have let in the first place) and it wants to tax our products outside of an agreement it made with us in supposedly good faith.. Appeasement has never worked for long. We are a sovereign nation, likely to be under economic attack by the USA again, as we have repeatedly in our history before WW11. If as you say the USA would invade us if we tried to enact policies that would keep our sovereignty then so be it because if that is true then they will do whatever they want anyway. I don't believe nor would many Canadians, that it would be simple for the US to invade Canada. I think you would be far more likely to see civil unrest in the USA itself before that ever happened. Look, we have been given a heaven sent opportunity to revise our trade policies, reinvest in our country and create a defence force with some teeth. Why do we have the opportunity? Because Trump has politically united Canadians in a way that has not happened in a very long time. Great threats don't come around very often in a nations history and when they do, they must be made use of and great change can be made. No time now for the weak to sit back and hope we will be alright - we have to do that ourselves and Canada is rich beyond words in resources, education and expertise.
Under ordinary circumstances that's probably correct, but the Cuban Missile Crisis was precisely about nuclear weapons in close proximity to the United States. We need nukes, but we're not going to get them.
Like all discussion, things come out of that. People's attitudes change, policies change and especially when great crisis occur. As mentioned earlier, appeasement has never worked for anyone.
We could quite easily produce our own nuclear weapons in Canada. It would suit the USA for us to reduce their cost of defending N.America and in return we would probably guarantee them something like rare minerals in return.
The Cuban missile crisis happened at the height of the Cold War and the Soviet Union was definitely seen as an enemy - Canada is not. It would be difficult for the USA to argue against Canada's need to defend itself from Russia and China, unless it was prepared to defend Canada, which it is apparently not willing to do now. Also, in the not so distant past, actually at the time of the Cuban missile crisis and afterwards, the USA pressured Canada to adopt nuclear weapons or at least allow the USA to have them based in Canada. We came very close under Diefenbaker and Peason to allowing that to happen.
Why should we do it:
- Deterrent against outside belligerence and those who view the resources in Canada as worth a risk. China and the USA come to mind.
- Size or our landmass
- Cost of conventional forces and the ability to take the savings and direct that into assisting our other industries.
- Because at this moment in history, the discussion in Canada would be allowed to happen.
With respect I think you are a bit tough on Ukraine and its attempts to flatter or win Trump over since the election and the inauguration, for had it not done this then Ukraine would have been accused of walking away from America, pushing it away from Europe or taking its “support” for granted.
Ukrainian leadership probably understood that the likelihood that these attempts would succeed was low, but the attempt had to be made lest a change in US policy be blamed on Ukraine.
Now, as you correctly and succinctly illustrate in your piece, the US position is on clear display, and Europe has a decision — one they wished to avoid — to make: take “sole responsibility” for their collective defence or fall under Russia’s sway.
I agree with your analysis on Ukraine's options. I recall Phillips being generally supportive of UKR's attempts to work with Trump in the past months. If there is harshness in the piece today I suppose it is just to stress the urgency of the moment, not to second guess. I'm too lazy to reread today's piece to verify, but that was my impression.
I think one aspect to understand Trump's actions is not emphasized enough. One of his main personal traits is hatred for any rule that restrains him - whether in the pursuit of power generally or in the pursuit of money, the latter being a symbol and a means for achieving the former.
It becomes clear when you see his quest for minerals in exchange for military assistance to Ukraine and his craving for Gaza or the minerals in Greenland. The same with Panama, it is about the price for using the canal. In this way you also see the urge for dismantling the control mechanisms of the WTO and the consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the USAID. It's all about removing obstacles for him (and business in general) to freely bully or cheat or trick people to give him their money.
I think, besides his admiration for strongmen, that one important aspect for wanting the relations to Russia normalized, is to lift the sanctions, while they obstruct in the same way as consumer protection and other laws resticting business. I really believe it is that simple, because Trump is simple-minded. Money and freedom for the wealthy to act according to the law of the jungle. That's also clear in his contempt for the US Constitution and law in general.
Just a little aside. Trump says he wants the war to ende becouse of all the people being killed. Great empathy! But there is NO SINGLE SIGN in his behaviour that indicates that he cares about Ukrainian or Russian lives. He doesn't even care about American lives, at least not outside his pool of supporters. His revoking of security for Fauci, Milley, Bolton and others is the proof of that.
I think everyone gives the Trump team too much credit for having some sort of plan.
Their actions can be explained by the following very mundane concerns. Trump just wants to in the center of attention. That is why he had summits with the Dear Leader of North Korea, of which nothing came about. Everyone working with Trump agrees that he has the attention span of a 5 year old. He has already forgotten about Greenland and unless someone will remind him the rare earth minerals saga will go the way of the hundred of tweets equally disturbing from the first term.
Every broken clock being right rwice daily, several eral years ago he complained about Germans constructing North Stream 2 and in effect financing the Russian defense industry, while USA was spending money to keep troops in Europe to defend Europe and Germany from the Russian troops being financed by European gas trade with Russia.
MAGA thrives on media circus and "triggering the libs". The way to claim the Trump mantle and position oneself for the next Republican primary is to say outrageous stuff and be attacked from the left or center for it and therefore appear worthy of being the chosen successor. Expect more outrageous and nonsensical stuff from Vance, Rubio and Hegeseth. What incentives are there to appear mature while on the Trump team?
As for the Europeans, they already have a strong and inventive army defending them. It is the Ukrainian Army. I read somewhere that there are many (dozens or more?) of Patriot batteries operational or in storage across Europe. Unless they are in one of the countries near the front lines, why are they not in Ukraine? The same goes with any tanks or airplanes or other military hardware. Why are Poland and Romania not giving Ukraine at least a few of the more modern and fully upgraded F16?
EU has an enormous budget. A fraction of it would fully fund a larger Ukrainian Army .
Oh and if the Europeans really gather up their courage they could even put on notice countries like India and China and others in the south that fall nancing Russia comes with a cost. They can choose Russian oil or the European market.
"This is arguably the most important week in European history since 1991 or even 1945."
This is inarguably the most important week in European history since 1945. FIFY, Herr Professor
That's my only quibble. Well, maybe change a few question marks to periods. This is the most important piece you will ever write. The hour is late. I am glad it is not paywalled. So many of our friends (well in my case intellectuals who I admire from afar) have been close to understanding Trump. But it is was simply impossible to believe that the American people would turn to such pure evil. Forget Trump, there are very decent Republicans who projected decency into Vance, who is actually worse.
Both your analysis and persuasive skills are meeting this terrible moment. thanks
I always associated the phrase "resistance is futile" with the NAZI's but turns out it came from Star Trek.
The same folks who said UKR was doomed at the start also consistently argued against arming UKR to the extent needed to make a difference. It was always a bad faith circular argument. UKR has demonstrated their potential on the battlefield; RU has shown its shocking vulnerability.
Nothing along along the lines of what the current US government is suggesting can be reasonably expected to end this war. Allowing Russia to stop the fighting for a while, integrate the territories it has conquered, rebuild its military stronger, and then attack again — this is not ending the war. It is making the war worse overall.
So what’s the overarching deal? Great powers divide the world into their spheres of influence? US gets the western hemisphere, China gets east Asia, and Russia gets Europe? (Not sure what happens with Africa and the middle east.)
You might be more right on this than you know. China rules east Asia, India has its sphere, the US dominates the Americas, and who knows what happens in Europe
Middle East is Persian, of course. Russian Empire, Persian Empire and Chinese Empire will cover most of the Old World. Well, the Middle East will actually have to make room for the Ottoman Empire as well.
Yes, this is the week NATO and the post 1945 world order officially ended. We are now in dangerous territory. The largest economy is now run by what is a mafia operation spouting facist, authoritarian talking points and trying like hell to implement them in the US and globally.
Europe needs to act quickly. There is little time. The US experiment is dead. US leadership is dead. It is in your hands, Europe.
The US may currently have the largest economy in the world, but it will be wasted. I fear the US will reprise what happened to Argentina with Juan Perón. They were the second largest economy, a thriving democracy, and had the second largest navy in the world at one time. Argentina never recovered from Perón and I doubt the US will recover from Trump.
If it wasn't before, it's clear now that the new US under Trump has thrown Ukraine and its people to the wolves in the Kremlin and also given away whatever leverage they might have at the negotiation table at a stroke for no advantage. Staggering for the "great deal maker."
Have European leaders been living under a stone?
The US needs to be suspended from NATO - surely there is a way for the other members to do that? If not, invent one. This is realpolitik after all. Then regroup the alliance around European countries working with Canada as the North Atlantic partner. The peacekeepers along any ceasefire line - assuming we get that far - have to be linked to NATO and be able to defend themselves when Russia attacks them, as it will because Putin has no intention of honouring any agreed/negotiated ceasefire. it will just be a pause for him to regroup and rearm and everyone knows that.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty (an attack on one is an attack on all) cannot be suspended unilaterally by the US whatever that (drunken?) idiot Hegseth said. That is another reason to push America out of the picture - it has already excluded itself anyway - and just get on with what Europe needs to do on its own soil. A "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine has to happen. Zelenskyy has called for a European Army. He is not the only one. It has to happen.
And for the record, the US is the only member of NATO to have invoked Article 5, following the attack on the World Trade Centre in new York in 2001. Ukraine sent 6,000 troops to Iraq and Kuwait even thought it was not a member of the alliance.
Yes indeed, Dr. Craig. The Trump admin (and therefore the US) with these latest moves is betraying not only Ukraine but Europe as well, and Europe's startled politicians will soon have to accept this because this reality is not going away. Therefore the US must be severed from European security and NATO must evolve to a European army plus Canada. Period. With, I might add, European nations quickly raising their defense spending up to 3% or more and creating a formal entity to begin coordinating production of weapons systems and munitions. No doubt a painful process getting there, especially for the politicians who must lead this death and rebirth of security arrangements, but this is what will be required to ensure European nations' security against a de facto Russo-American alliance already showing itself to be in place.
NATO needs to be cast in the dustbin, and a new security organization formed which can have authoritarian states removed from the alliance by a substantial majority vote and new democratic states brought in by the same size substantial majority vote (not unanimous).
There was a framework deal for a viable peace deal in 2022, thrashed out in Turkey, scuppered by Biden & Boris Johnson. After that date, any pretence that the Europeans and US Atlanticists had Ukraine's best interests anywhere at all in their considerations has been demonstrable hogwash. That's when they were thrown to the wolves, not now.
And of course the only option when such sticking points exist is to throw it out, reject all further negotiations and start the massive arms shipments because that's where the best interests of the Ukrainians lay. Even if we ignore that, your position relies upon the notion that the US, UK and NATO also had either the means or inclination to 'do all it takes' to defeat the Russians. Bitter experience has proven neither of these things to be true. What they always wanted was a protracted war to weaken them with the punt that sanctions might work. This was never about the best interests of the Ukrainians - not for a second.
The Ukrainians turned down the deal, and have refused to negotiate based on Putin’s unreasonable preconditions.
You want Ukraine to knuckle under, but it’s not your choice. It’s theirs. They choose to fight rather than to do what Czechoslovakia did when they gave up the Sudetenland. They choose to fight even when abandoned by the U.S.
Moving out of NATO is a must: think about all the intelligence sharing that happens there. Trump knows exactly what is on this west side of the Line of Contact. I'm sure his feeding intel to Putin is just days away.
The day Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to oversee all intelligence services NATO was a dead man walking. Didn't matter whether she was confirmed. Trump's intentions were revealed.
In reality I suppose NATO will limp along for a while. It's not like all the military leaders within the U.S. were transformed into neo-nazis. That purge will take some time and may fail.
BTW, I think the U.S. people are going to recognize the depths of the rot and recover. But that is a different topic and Europe has to build new structures.
There's a big silver lining to Trump. He's brutally honest, unlike most politicians. Sure, he tells dozens of lies every day. But he's refreshingly honest about who he is, and that's why he won two out of his three elections. He's not a hypocrite. He does not even try to pretend to be a good man. He does not go to church, does not quote the Bible, does not do good deeds, does not even hide his cruelty (in fact it's a big attraction for many voters). Unlike some others, the Trumps never put on a show in which Trump would say in pained voice that he strayed in the past and Melania would say that despite deep hurt from his totally unexpected unfaithfulness she fully forgave him because their love for each other is greater than all that. His defense against accusation of rape was not "I would never do that!" but "she's not my type". That was actually a lie, but a very revealing one.
Imagine if Trump was more circumspect about his dealings with Putin. Imagine if Vance smoothly delivered a bland speech full of platitudes about shared values and importance of alliances, only very gently chided the Europeans with a sole example of a praying abortion protester, denounced Russian aggression and atrocities (while sadly acknowledging the necessity of making unspecified compromises), and afterwards had polite conversations with Scholz and Merz. All that would have provided enough of a fig leaf for Germany and virtually all countries to the west of it to pretend that Trump's difference with his predecessors was more on style than substance, that all would be back to normal when Vance was elected president (or replaced Trump even sooner), and that Europe just needed to try to along with Trump.
But no, Trump, Vance and Musk did not even try to hide their sympathies for Putin and fascists. The Europeans can't pretend anymore that everything is OK. They may not yet do anything about it, but they can't complain later that they were deceived. Whatever happens now, is on them.
Quite. It is clear who the enemy is and it always has been for those who chose to see who Trump was (hint: exactly who he said he was). European leaders have been asleep or wilfully dreaming at the wheel. We have a lot to make up and time is short. But it can and must be done. We have to start now. Starmer schmoozing with Washington is quite the wrong approach. UK will be humiliated - of course - but eventually we will come round to see sense and join with our neighbours in Europe. It needs to happen sooner not later.
> But he's refreshingly honest about who he is, and that's why he won two out of his three elections.
This is clearly not the case. Trump said he had nothing to do with Project 2025, and that he didn’t know what it was. And yet he’s implementing it.
Rather, Trump tells his constituents what they want to hear. He’s only honest if you disregard every dishonest thing he’s said, and by that standard everyone is honest.
I mean that he is honest on a higher level. He does not even try to hide who he is. Unlike "traditional" politicians. Just a decade ago Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney were polished politicians, looking as insincere as everybody else in the profession. It took extreme circumstances for us to learn they were indeed different from many other Republicans. Trump has never been polished. He has always shown us his true self. And many voters were disgusted by what they saw. But many others found it refreshing and did not hold it against Trump, because they long suspected all politicians were like that and were just hiding that. Quite a few voters even liked that, as that's how they would love to behave themselves, if only they could afford it. The man has no shame. He's a bigot and he does not care that we all know that. He's a fascist and does not try to hide it. Even the Europeans cannot deny it now.
To better understand what I mean, just look at Marine Le Pen. She pretends not to be a bigot. Trump does not. He does not use a dog whistle - he uses a bullhorn.
Andrew, as usual: spot on (unfortunately). There’s been way too much pious waffling - on this sub-stack but more on others - lamenting about Trump et al., but precious little about WHAT TO DO! If you can, get this weeks The Economist. It’s a triumph of clear analysis and hard truths - time for Europe to get real but it will be expensive and hard, in fact a revolution. Hmmm….
As Donald Tusk just pointed out, they have a lot of frozen Russian assets.
On Election Night I had a feeling that we no longer live in post-WWII world but in pre-WWIII world.
You might be right
Agreed, this is an ominous turn. A third world war seems quite certain now. There is no way that the EU can disregard Russia's aggression any longer, especially now that my government in the US is in the hands of neofascists.
“A third world war seems quite certain now.”
Shocking to see those words in black and white, and hopefully not true, but surely the logic of Europe’s position is that pre 2014 Ukraine borders need to be re-established and Ukraine’s security guaranteed.
A new North Atlantic (but not US) Treaty Organisation. A European + Canada Defence Force.
I’m shocked to see myself forced into accepting the reality of this.
Or in the pre-WW I world—uninhibited great power politics.
Interesting. Though the key thing is that the last 80 year era is over
Because we let it be over. It's all on our heads, although I know you realize that better than just about anyone.
WWI already happened. But WWIII is much likelier now.
Kathleen, today’s leaders can’t claim sleepwalking. They are fully aware; do they have the courage?
I fear that for my daughter.
I have a 13 year old son. As Trump was winning, I had to assure my wife that I'll have enough money to smuggle our son out of the country if mobilization comes (Trump voters seemed to be oblivious that it would be their children and grandchildren having to fight to restore the world order, and that Trump considers them suckers and losers).
My fear is slightly different. My daughter is 14 of mixed race (her mother is Trinidadian) and she will be facing all sorts of discrimination for that as well as being a woman. We are looking at Canada (where I do a lot of work) or Spain (where my current wife is from) as places to go. I fear for your son and what is to come, Andrew.
Guys, I embrace your fears. I’m in Sydney (you may think that’s far away but wait until Trump shops us after 75 years of loyalty for a “deal” with China and renders us a vassal) but my daughter and 20-month beloved grandson are in Brooklyn. It won’t be him or your grandkids who do the fighting - the U.S. continent is huge and the enemy is distant - it will be all the peripheral allies’ children who do the fighting and dying. Such as Ukraine. The Trump and Kushner and Vance grandchildren will never be affected, any more than the Putin nomenklatura are.
Stefan Korshak was out with a pretty good substack yesterday about what the US military commitment is, which kind of debunks hegseths threats to pull out of Europe: the US has 3 combat brigades, one of which trains for desert warfare, about 12000 total. Plus another 65000 troops maintaing airports and the like. It has about 75 fighter planes stationed there and 100 sixty year old nuclear bombs designed to be dropped from planes. And that's about it.
Can Ukraine survive without US military aid? I think that's the big question. My impression (and I could be wrong since I'm no expert) is that it's mainly about the supply of artillery shells and replacing lost delivery systems. Let's see how serious Europe is about it's defense by stepping up there.
As I say, the pulling out of Europe for other commitments is a sham
Europe still has no replacement for Patriot (IRIS-T is being improved but still doesn't have, nor will it have in the foreseeable future, the capabilities of PAC 3). And Patriot is just the little guy compared with THAAD and the new "AEGIS Ashore" systems installed in Romania and Poland. PAC 2 and PAC 3 missile production was ramped up in the US; I don't see quite the same production capability for air defense systems in Europe.
As for US capabilities in Europe...let me just add a pull quote from a DOD press release:
"Since February 2022, DoD deployed or extended over 20,000 additional forces to Europe in response to the Ukraine crisis, adding additional air, land, maritime, cyber, and space capabilities, bringing our current total to more than 100,000 service members across Europe. This included extending a Carrier Strike Group, deploying additional fighter squadrons and lift/tanker aircraft, and deploying an Amphibious Readiness Group and Marine Expeditionary Force. DoD added a Corps Headquarters, Division Headquarters, Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) battalion, and multiple enablers to the existing Corps Forward Command Post, Division Headquarters, and three BCTs already stationed in or deployed to Europe"
That just in addition to what's already there. The European Activity Set includes includes some 12,000 pieces of equipment, including tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and artillery.
Then there are facilities: Here's a partial list including just warehousing and storage. Too much to put in a post, so here's a DOD publication link:
https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Portals/19/documents/Fact%20Sheets/APS%20Fact%20Sheet%2010262022.pdf?ver=gfg2yCbEhimp3riAj1GBhQ%3D%3D
In summary, I don't want to contemplate the fate of Europe if the US goes full asshole here. Europe isn't ready, doesn't have a plan to be ready, doesn't have the leadership to be ready -- and even if it had all those things it would take years to ramp up capabilities and actually be ready.
Great post. We need more of this factual realism
I suppose US intelligence from satellites and AWACs plays a role. I don't know what's replaceable there. Starling? Hmmmmm.
Star Link
Personally, I would be very cautious about trusting most any American made weapons system where the "permission" to use it in ones own defense had to be granted by an administration potentially indifferent to ones survival. Even more so for a communication/intelligence gathering system (Starlink) that can be disabled by a disgruntled foreign individual who may not share your interests.
...and the drive to create a nuclear force for Ukraine will now intensify.
Thanks this assessment. However sombre, it is the truth. But let there be no mistake, what we are witnessing is not only the abandonment by the US of the post 1945 order in Europe but also, and this is even worse, the abandonment by the United States (and however many American are pained by this, Trump is the President of all Americans for the next four years) of the overriding principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law as Trump prepares to "negotiate" with a dictator who is a documented murderer, terrorist, indicted by the ICC for war crimes. If anything, this is more of a shock to the system than the fact that Europeans have been woefully slow in getting their act together on their own defence and security. However much the Europeans have been warned in the past year, did they really expect Trump and his administration to sink so low ? Many clearly didn't, as shown by their obvious disbelief at what they were hearing from Trump and Vance at the Munich conference.
Looking back at your premonitory piece of Feb 12th, 2024:
- On the institutional side, the UK will not rejoin the EU soon, that much is clear. But Starmer will be in Paris tomorrow, he will pledge to boost cooperation with other European states on defence and security and has said today that UK defence spending will rise significantly, overruling his finance minister.
- In the run up to the Paris conference and at the instigation of the US, European states are indeed completing an inventory of military resources that could be made available for Ukraine
-even if Scholz never relented about sending Taurus missiles, F16s have arrived in Ukraine and so have 4 (or 6?) Mirage fighter jets from France. More on the way.
- the "massive cooperation" on UAVs that you called for is happening as we speak, even if powers like France and the UK are loth to admit publicly that they have experts and special forces on the ground in Ukraine. There is the definite prospect of Ukraine winning this aspect of the new warfare.
-the "joint military commission" has passed from the Ramstein format to a new format under the current presidency of the UK.
- not sure by how much artillery production has been increased but we don't hear nearly as much now as we did a year ago about the lack of ammunition on the Ukrainian side. Perhaps because the importance of artillery has declined with the huge increase of drone deployment ?
- properly coordinated Intelligence gathering between European, from what we know, is still sorely lacking.
Overall verdict: can and must do more and more quickly ! All eyes will be on the Paris summit tomorrow.
So what will Trump's next move on Ukraine be ? Military aid for Russia ?
More likely just walking away from Europe unless Ukraine and Europe do what he wants
I think you could be wrong. I don't think it's "moving away from", it looks more like "picking a fight with" Europe.
Is this all about trade? Trying to strong-arm Europe into trade deals? Is it possibly that stupid?
It’s about wanting a different kind of Europe. An organised one as I say in the piece
I can't buy that, professor. They can't simultaneously want an organised Europe and also actively promote a nativist alt-rights European movement. Those two things are directly opposed to each other
They're demanding that Europe be fish AND fowl. I can't see how that's anything more than trying to pick a fight?
Perhaps Trump doesn't know what he is doing?
So in what way is an organised 'nativist alt-right' European movement' *not* organised ?
The nativist alt-right Europeans are explicitly disorganised. They fight each other. There is no "European" nationality. Vance appealing to these as a collective group of any kind doesn't work other than if they become clear "puppet regimes"
Meant Orbanized! Predictive text mistake
Aha, that makes sense yes. I'm not sure they even care about that. For all their "Christian ideals" they don't actually care about anything Christian.
I think they want to simply overhaul all trade agreements with Europe, to try to prop up the US for just a LITTLE bit longer and skim off the top themselves. That's what it looks like. It's not about Ukraine or Russia, it's about extractive capitalism.
And how would such new trade agreements 'prop up' the US?
The US has been de-industrialised and this has benefitted the few at the expense of the many.
But it's catching up with the US now, as it's effectively importing too much and "making" too little and exporting too little.
So the Trump / Musk playbook may well be to prop up this bad system (not exporting or building enough) by forcing it's trade partners to buy more American goods, through use of military might. Military might is one area in which the US is currently unmatched and able to basically get its way.
I hope the context of "prop up" is clear here: propping up a bad US industrial strategy. Again, for the benefit of the few and to the detriment of the country itself.
I think it's all about Trump's personal wants, both in regard to flows of money into his private pockets (he still owns less than certain billionaires) and in regard to flows of attention and submissive worship in response to what he says. I have seen no indication that he thinks at all about how his actions impact others.
Trump could be a lame duck in two years.
We're 1 month in, and so much is happening so fast that I don't want to even think about what permutations are possible in a 2-year time frame. Could be that he's a lame duck, could be that he's an emperor!
But will he agree to sell weapons to Ukraine if Europe pays? That is the most important question. Money is important to him, and here were are also talking about manufacturing jobs, mostly in states that voted for him. Plus reduction of trade deficit with Europe! All that without any tariffs. The Europeans can further put more orders for themselves, perhaps order even more F-35s (not they won't need them if they want to defend themselves).
We don’t know. My guess is that he loosens sanctions on Russia and gets back to business with Putin
If the European want to defend themselves then buying the F-35 is the last thing they ought to do.
And still be in thrall to US permission if they want/need to use all those bright, shiny American made weapons?
Obviously, he won't sell long range weapons. But artillery shells and Patriot interceptors?
And how is the Europe part of that a change in US strategy?
Canadians have made a drastic turn against the US in the past month with all the mafia shake down trade threats and 51st state talk. Trump wants us under his thumb, taking our resources and denying our own political agency. Back to imperialist and mercantilist thought structures. Canada is a willing ally of free Europe, alas there is no escaping geography. The post above noting US taking the western hemisphere, China the far east and Russia dominating Europe is a possible and frightening future.
There are millions of Americans who will...and do...side with Canada against the Trump regime. I have strong doubts that the American military would follow any orders to invade Canada, Greenland or Panama. It's much more likely that a "behind the curtain" threat to remove Trump for his unconstitutional actions would play out. I see that as a last ditch effort to save democracy in the U.S..
I think there is a serious reason for Europe and Canada to sit at the table and discuss a long term resource supply for Europe. 200 billion from Russia and all of it is exactly what Canada produces - Nickel, copper, oil, LNG, etc. Who would you rather have supplying you.
There is now for the first time in 60 years a discussion starting amongst rational liberal Canadians, about the reality of arming ourselves with nuclear weapons. It would be relatively simple for Canada to do and probably considerably cheaper than an equivalent conventional force, given the size of the landmass we have to cover. As a deterrent they are very effective i.e. Pakistan & N. Korea, both two of the world's most hopeless states but nobody bothers them a lot - just afraid of them.
Canadian here. I'd love new trade arrangements with Europe... I do not think the US will permit it. Still less would they permit us to acquire nuclear weapons... the invasion would start five minutes after they caught wind of any serious plan to do that.
We're hooped, and we should make plans to either emigrate to Australia or start learning the words to Star Spangled Banner (if we're lucky they'll let us be citizens).
I think what has hampered Canadians for far too long, is that the USA is convenient for us, so we have been really lazy about all kinds of innovations that could be ours to create and profit from. The second thing I think Canadians have always been, is afraid of poking the elephant next door because of that convenience - it might cost us somethiing. Well now the USA has told us in no uncertain terms, it won't protect us (stupid for us to have let in the first place) and it wants to tax our products outside of an agreement it made with us in supposedly good faith.. Appeasement has never worked for long. We are a sovereign nation, likely to be under economic attack by the USA again, as we have repeatedly in our history before WW11. If as you say the USA would invade us if we tried to enact policies that would keep our sovereignty then so be it because if that is true then they will do whatever they want anyway. I don't believe nor would many Canadians, that it would be simple for the US to invade Canada. I think you would be far more likely to see civil unrest in the USA itself before that ever happened. Look, we have been given a heaven sent opportunity to revise our trade policies, reinvest in our country and create a defence force with some teeth. Why do we have the opportunity? Because Trump has politically united Canadians in a way that has not happened in a very long time. Great threats don't come around very often in a nations history and when they do, they must be made use of and great change can be made. No time now for the weak to sit back and hope we will be alright - we have to do that ourselves and Canada is rich beyond words in resources, education and expertise.
Canada would be to the US what Afghanistan was to the Soviets.
I don’t think the U.S. military would obey an order to invade Canada, and if they did there would be serious unrest in the U.S.
Under ordinary circumstances that's probably correct, but the Cuban Missile Crisis was precisely about nuclear weapons in close proximity to the United States. We need nukes, but we're not going to get them.
Like all discussion, things come out of that. People's attitudes change, policies change and especially when great crisis occur. As mentioned earlier, appeasement has never worked for anyone.
We could quite easily produce our own nuclear weapons in Canada. It would suit the USA for us to reduce their cost of defending N.America and in return we would probably guarantee them something like rare minerals in return.
The Cuban missile crisis happened at the height of the Cold War and the Soviet Union was definitely seen as an enemy - Canada is not. It would be difficult for the USA to argue against Canada's need to defend itself from Russia and China, unless it was prepared to defend Canada, which it is apparently not willing to do now. Also, in the not so distant past, actually at the time of the Cuban missile crisis and afterwards, the USA pressured Canada to adopt nuclear weapons or at least allow the USA to have them based in Canada. We came very close under Diefenbaker and Peason to allowing that to happen.
Why should we do it:
- Deterrent against outside belligerence and those who view the resources in Canada as worth a risk. China and the USA come to mind.
- Size or our landmass
- Cost of conventional forces and the ability to take the savings and direct that into assisting our other industries.
- Because at this moment in history, the discussion in Canada would be allowed to happen.
With respect I think you are a bit tough on Ukraine and its attempts to flatter or win Trump over since the election and the inauguration, for had it not done this then Ukraine would have been accused of walking away from America, pushing it away from Europe or taking its “support” for granted.
Ukrainian leadership probably understood that the likelihood that these attempts would succeed was low, but the attempt had to be made lest a change in US policy be blamed on Ukraine.
Now, as you correctly and succinctly illustrate in your piece, the US position is on clear display, and Europe has a decision — one they wished to avoid — to make: take “sole responsibility” for their collective defence or fall under Russia’s sway.
I agree with your analysis on Ukraine's options. I recall Phillips being generally supportive of UKR's attempts to work with Trump in the past months. If there is harshness in the piece today I suppose it is just to stress the urgency of the moment, not to second guess. I'm too lazy to reread today's piece to verify, but that was my impression.
He did say he can’t be angry at Ukraine for trying.
Diplomacy in classic European style. Gentle flattery won't hurt, and might even push pieces into a more favorable array.
I think one aspect to understand Trump's actions is not emphasized enough. One of his main personal traits is hatred for any rule that restrains him - whether in the pursuit of power generally or in the pursuit of money, the latter being a symbol and a means for achieving the former.
It becomes clear when you see his quest for minerals in exchange for military assistance to Ukraine and his craving for Gaza or the minerals in Greenland. The same with Panama, it is about the price for using the canal. In this way you also see the urge for dismantling the control mechanisms of the WTO and the consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the USAID. It's all about removing obstacles for him (and business in general) to freely bully or cheat or trick people to give him their money.
I think, besides his admiration for strongmen, that one important aspect for wanting the relations to Russia normalized, is to lift the sanctions, while they obstruct in the same way as consumer protection and other laws resticting business. I really believe it is that simple, because Trump is simple-minded. Money and freedom for the wealthy to act according to the law of the jungle. That's also clear in his contempt for the US Constitution and law in general.
Just a little aside. Trump says he wants the war to ende becouse of all the people being killed. Great empathy! But there is NO SINGLE SIGN in his behaviour that indicates that he cares about Ukrainian or Russian lives. He doesn't even care about American lives, at least not outside his pool of supporters. His revoking of security for Fauci, Milley, Bolton and others is the proof of that.
He certainly expects Americans to die (and countless Arabs) in order to clear the way for his Gaza resort properties.
I think everyone gives the Trump team too much credit for having some sort of plan.
Their actions can be explained by the following very mundane concerns. Trump just wants to in the center of attention. That is why he had summits with the Dear Leader of North Korea, of which nothing came about. Everyone working with Trump agrees that he has the attention span of a 5 year old. He has already forgotten about Greenland and unless someone will remind him the rare earth minerals saga will go the way of the hundred of tweets equally disturbing from the first term.
Every broken clock being right rwice daily, several eral years ago he complained about Germans constructing North Stream 2 and in effect financing the Russian defense industry, while USA was spending money to keep troops in Europe to defend Europe and Germany from the Russian troops being financed by European gas trade with Russia.
MAGA thrives on media circus and "triggering the libs". The way to claim the Trump mantle and position oneself for the next Republican primary is to say outrageous stuff and be attacked from the left or center for it and therefore appear worthy of being the chosen successor. Expect more outrageous and nonsensical stuff from Vance, Rubio and Hegeseth. What incentives are there to appear mature while on the Trump team?
As for the Europeans, they already have a strong and inventive army defending them. It is the Ukrainian Army. I read somewhere that there are many (dozens or more?) of Patriot batteries operational or in storage across Europe. Unless they are in one of the countries near the front lines, why are they not in Ukraine? The same goes with any tanks or airplanes or other military hardware. Why are Poland and Romania not giving Ukraine at least a few of the more modern and fully upgraded F16?
EU has an enormous budget. A fraction of it would fully fund a larger Ukrainian Army .
Oh and if the Europeans really gather up their courage they could even put on notice countries like India and China and others in the south that fall nancing Russia comes with a cost. They can choose Russian oil or the European market.
"This is arguably the most important week in European history since 1991 or even 1945."
This is inarguably the most important week in European history since 1945. FIFY, Herr Professor
That's my only quibble. Well, maybe change a few question marks to periods. This is the most important piece you will ever write. The hour is late. I am glad it is not paywalled. So many of our friends (well in my case intellectuals who I admire from afar) have been close to understanding Trump. But it is was simply impossible to believe that the American people would turn to such pure evil. Forget Trump, there are very decent Republicans who projected decency into Vance, who is actually worse.
Both your analysis and persuasive skills are meeting this terrible moment. thanks
Ending unwinnable wars is pure evil?
I always associated the phrase "resistance is futile" with the NAZI's but turns out it came from Star Trek.
The same folks who said UKR was doomed at the start also consistently argued against arming UKR to the extent needed to make a difference. It was always a bad faith circular argument. UKR has demonstrated their potential on the battlefield; RU has shown its shocking vulnerability.
Nothing along along the lines of what the current US government is suggesting can be reasonably expected to end this war. Allowing Russia to stop the fighting for a while, integrate the territories it has conquered, rebuild its military stronger, and then attack again — this is not ending the war. It is making the war worse overall.
Depends how you end em, bubba.
Yes Putin not ending an unwinnable war is pure evil.
So what’s the overarching deal? Great powers divide the world into their spheres of influence? US gets the western hemisphere, China gets east Asia, and Russia gets Europe? (Not sure what happens with Africa and the middle east.)
Ugh. What could go wrong?
You might be more right on this than you know. China rules east Asia, India has its sphere, the US dominates the Americas, and who knows what happens in Europe
That’ll what George Orwell predicted in 1984. Brexit excised Britain from Europe to secure its future as Airstrip One
Middle East is Persian, of course. Russian Empire, Persian Empire and Chinese Empire will cover most of the Old World. Well, the Middle East will actually have to make room for the Ottoman Empire as well.
I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher saying Gorbachev was someone she could do business with. What a different world.
Sigh
Yes, this is the week NATO and the post 1945 world order officially ended. We are now in dangerous territory. The largest economy is now run by what is a mafia operation spouting facist, authoritarian talking points and trying like hell to implement them in the US and globally.
Europe needs to act quickly. There is little time. The US experiment is dead. US leadership is dead. It is in your hands, Europe.
The US may currently have the largest economy in the world, but it will be wasted. I fear the US will reprise what happened to Argentina with Juan Perón. They were the second largest economy, a thriving democracy, and had the second largest navy in the world at one time. Argentina never recovered from Perón and I doubt the US will recover from Trump.
If it wasn't before, it's clear now that the new US under Trump has thrown Ukraine and its people to the wolves in the Kremlin and also given away whatever leverage they might have at the negotiation table at a stroke for no advantage. Staggering for the "great deal maker."
Have European leaders been living under a stone?
The US needs to be suspended from NATO - surely there is a way for the other members to do that? If not, invent one. This is realpolitik after all. Then regroup the alliance around European countries working with Canada as the North Atlantic partner. The peacekeepers along any ceasefire line - assuming we get that far - have to be linked to NATO and be able to defend themselves when Russia attacks them, as it will because Putin has no intention of honouring any agreed/negotiated ceasefire. it will just be a pause for him to regroup and rearm and everyone knows that.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty (an attack on one is an attack on all) cannot be suspended unilaterally by the US whatever that (drunken?) idiot Hegseth said. That is another reason to push America out of the picture - it has already excluded itself anyway - and just get on with what Europe needs to do on its own soil. A "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine has to happen. Zelenskyy has called for a European Army. He is not the only one. It has to happen.
And for the record, the US is the only member of NATO to have invoked Article 5, following the attack on the World Trade Centre in new York in 2001. Ukraine sent 6,000 troops to Iraq and Kuwait even thought it was not a member of the alliance.
Yes indeed, Dr. Craig. The Trump admin (and therefore the US) with these latest moves is betraying not only Ukraine but Europe as well, and Europe's startled politicians will soon have to accept this because this reality is not going away. Therefore the US must be severed from European security and NATO must evolve to a European army plus Canada. Period. With, I might add, European nations quickly raising their defense spending up to 3% or more and creating a formal entity to begin coordinating production of weapons systems and munitions. No doubt a painful process getting there, especially for the politicians who must lead this death and rebirth of security arrangements, but this is what will be required to ensure European nations' security against a de facto Russo-American alliance already showing itself to be in place.
NATO needs to be cast in the dustbin, and a new security organization formed which can have authoritarian states removed from the alliance by a substantial majority vote and new democratic states brought in by the same size substantial majority vote (not unanimous).
And initially the U.S. should not be a member.
At least not till Trump has been irreversibly cast into the dustbin of sorry history
There was a framework deal for a viable peace deal in 2022, thrashed out in Turkey, scuppered by Biden & Boris Johnson. After that date, any pretence that the Europeans and US Atlanticists had Ukraine's best interests anywhere at all in their considerations has been demonstrable hogwash. That's when they were thrown to the wolves, not now.
That’s certainly Putin’s opinion, but most in the west don’t share it.
The Sticking Points That Kept Russia and Ukraine Apart (NYT):
https://archive.is/sRmEw
And of course the only option when such sticking points exist is to throw it out, reject all further negotiations and start the massive arms shipments because that's where the best interests of the Ukrainians lay. Even if we ignore that, your position relies upon the notion that the US, UK and NATO also had either the means or inclination to 'do all it takes' to defeat the Russians. Bitter experience has proven neither of these things to be true. What they always wanted was a protracted war to weaken them with the punt that sanctions might work. This was never about the best interests of the Ukrainians - not for a second.
The Ukrainians turned down the deal, and have refused to negotiate based on Putin’s unreasonable preconditions.
You want Ukraine to knuckle under, but it’s not your choice. It’s theirs. They choose to fight rather than to do what Czechoslovakia did when they gave up the Sudetenland. They choose to fight even when abandoned by the U.S.
> The US needs to be suspended from NATO - surely there is a way for the other members to do that? If not, invent one.
Better to create a new security alliance and framework, from scratch, and excluding the U.S. and authoritarian states.
Moving out of NATO is a must: think about all the intelligence sharing that happens there. Trump knows exactly what is on this west side of the Line of Contact. I'm sure his feeding intel to Putin is just days away.
The day Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to oversee all intelligence services NATO was a dead man walking. Didn't matter whether she was confirmed. Trump's intentions were revealed.
In reality I suppose NATO will limp along for a while. It's not like all the military leaders within the U.S. were transformed into neo-nazis. That purge will take some time and may fail.
BTW, I think the U.S. people are going to recognize the depths of the rot and recover. But that is a different topic and Europe has to build new structures.
Thank you. Here's a 🎁 link for the article in the Times in case anyone needs it. https://www.thetimes.com/article/78b4a842-1c43-40d9-a2b8-4342fb04dd68?shareToken=ebbf016e3ebd226df6d58c0ff2010ad5
Thanks for sharing