Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Europe is the midst of a very hot, hot summer. I know since I was recently in Europe, or at least in the UK. There are some very real conflicts that in one way or another draw in Europe – in Ukraine and in the Middle East. These conflicts have, or will likely have, real and enlarging consequences for Europe. In both cases Europe faces Trump administration actions and a growing sense that this President has little clue how to aid in resolving the first conflict between Ukraine and Russia, or to end the war that Trump started along with Israel with Iran and bring to a close what may well be a dramatically harmful outcome to US global leadership.
First let’s take a look at the state of US-European relations most evidently on display this month at the recent NATO Summit in Turkey. There was great concern that Trump was going unravel this key longstanding security arrangement and put at great risk Europe in the face of an aggressive Russia.
Steven Erlanger and Lara Jakes in the NY Times quickly described the evolution of the NATO partnership:
““NATO 1.0 was a clear defense against Soviet aggression and expansionism, and NATO 2.0 was a post-Cold War search for purpose,” he said in an interview, with the alliance looking outside North America and Europe and after Sept. 11, especially, to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and the Middle East.”
“But with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, China’s rising ambitions and Washington wanting to shift resources to Asia away from Europe, Mr. Sikorski said, “NATO 3.0 will mean that Europe will take more of the burden for conventional defense and the U.S. will be more of a cavalry-over-the-hill kind of ally.””
What Europe must now do was at the heart of a piece prepared by Ursala von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission and Mark Rutte the Secretary General of NATO. In an article in The Economist at the time of the NATO Summit they set out what Europe was undertaking, and further what Europe needed additionally to do in the face of Vladimir Putin and indeed of Donald Trump:
“Europe’s era of outsourcing much of its defence is now over. European NATO allies and EU member states are relearning that if
we want to prevent war, we have to be ready for it. They are rearming and
re-energising the defence industrial base so that we can protect our citizens,
our freedom and our security. Defence spending and production are both rising:
new factories are opening, and existing ones are adding shifts and production
lines.”“It is not just traditional defence companies ramping up. Increasingly we are seeing massive innovation in the sector. New companies are developing the tools and technologies that modern warfare calls for. Drones, unmanned ground vehicles, electronic-warfare systems—these are all necessary for our armed forces to deter, protect and defend.”
“The mindset has shifted. Even civilian car manufacturers are repurposing factories to produce components for the defence sector, including air defence and long-range drones.”
“In this more dangerous world, a stronger European defence industry capable of producing at scale and at speed is crucial to credible deterrence. The only way to get there is through co-operation: combining the efforts of countries and industries, allies and partners.”
As it turned out ‘fireworks’ were avoided at the NATO Ankara Summit, much to the relief of Europe’s governments and the EU. The almost palpable ‘sigh of relief’ by European leaders was described by Mark Leonard, the Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations:
“European leaders breathed a sigh of relief as US president Donald Trump departed last week’s NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey. Despite a few unseemly moments in which Trump reiterated his desire to seize Greenland and nonsensically ordered a halt to all trade with Spain, the meeting went off without any major catastrophes.”
“Most importantly, Trump did not announce any major troop withdrawals from Europe or any moves to leave the alliance. He even had warm words for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, and pledged to grant Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot air-defence missiles domestically. By the end, even Trump proclaimed that there was “love” in the air.”
For Leonard, however, it is not about breathing a sigh of relief and pretending that the alliance remains, all things considered, strong. Europe must now assess what needs to be undertaken going forward to safeguard against an aggressive Russia and an uncooperative Trump administration :
“Instead of spending an arbitrary share of their GDP on defence, they should critically evaluate their capability gaps and adjust their spending to match their needs. Coffers are tight everywhere, but it will be easier to justify expenditures on weapons if they appear less geared toward flattering Trump.”
Tough times are now.
Then, there is the Iran conflict. This is a war that for the moment cannot be concluded, notwithstanding Trump’s optimistic announcements. While the conflict focuses on Iran, the United States and near Mideast countries the shutting down of various waterways to energy and to trade more broadly impacts many including of course Europe.
Notwithstanding Trump’s ‘huffing and puffing’ the Trump hesitancy to move its kinetic strategy forward is apparent. David Sanger just reviewed Trump strategy and his hesitancy and uncertainty of the way forward for the US and its allies. As Sanger wrote in the NYTimes article titled, “Trump Seems Trapped by Iran War, Even as He Wields the World’s Biggest Hammer”:
“President Trump often celebrates his unpredictability, declaring that it keeps allies and adversaries alike off balance.”
“He has discovered limits on his power that he could have scarcely imagined as he began full combat operations on Feb. 28, when he set out goals for a swift end to Iran’s nuclear program and the overthrow of the country’s government.”
“Five months later, those goals remain almost entirely unaccomplished. And Mr. Trump, once confident that overwhelming force would enable him to pursue in Iran what he proudly called the “Venezuela model” — a change of government to one amenable to U.S. control — is now hesitant to plunge back into major combat operations that his intelligence agencies assess are unlikely to work as well in Tehran.”
Sanger then outlines three possible, though unhappy ways forward for this muddled President:
“Five months later, those goals remain almost entirely unaccomplished. And Mr. Trump, once confident that overwhelming force would enable him to pursue in Iran what he proudly called the “Venezuela model” — a change of government to one amenable to U.S. control — is now hesitant to plunge back into major combat operations that his intelligence agencies assess are unlikely to work as well in Tehran.”
“On Friday, after signaling all week that he was planning a return to major combat operations in Iran, he pulled back. In briefings, according to several officials, aides cast doubt on whether a massive bombardment, one that cut off electricity and went after Iran’s resilient missile capability, would result in Iran’s return to meaningful negotiations.”
“Mr. Trump’s second option is to let sanctions sink in, hoping that further crackdowns on oil exports, enforced by the renewed blockade of shipments into and out of the Strait of Hormuz, will have their intended effect.”
“But those are slow, and Mr. Trump has been predicting economic collapse in Iran since he first pulled out of the Obama-era nuclear deal in 2018 and imposed what he called crushing controls on Iran. Eight years later, the regime lives, under a new leader who could be more dedicated to a covert nuclear program.”
“The third option is to declare victory and go home. Mr. Trump seemed to be headed that way a month ago, when he said he had chosen a cease-fire and negotiations because he did not want to risk a depression that would invite comparisons to Herbert Hoover.”
“But exiting comes with costs. If Mr. Trump leaves Iran with its near-bomb grade nuclear fuel buried under rubble and with the Strait of Hormuz under de facto Iranian control, he will have failed to address the problem that triggered his attack and created a vast new one for energy markets.”
Julian E. Barnes, Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt, again in the NYTimes, and yet again looking at the unpalatable options now left to the US President, put it this way:
“In an odd way, the Trump administration’s current struggles with Iran are at least partly the result of the U.S. success at the start of the war.”
“Iran’s new leaders, he added, want to inflict as much damage on the United States and its allies as it can to deter a future war against their country.”
They conclude with the following:
““The president [according to Nicholas Hopton, now a distinguished fellow with the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies in London] of the United States still doesn’t seem to have made up his mind whether he wants a negotiated solution to this or to try for some kind of military conclusion, which all observers who know the situation in Iran and have worked in the Gulf would say is highly unlikely to work,” Mr. Hopton… said in a webinar on Wednesday.”
Unsure yet prone to ‘bullying’ is not a formula for any kind of successful outcome. I think European leaders are looking with growing worry over Donald Trump’s actions and the impact of these Trump actions on European wellbeing. Whereto from here for European allies presents difficult choices for these pressure leaders. But further actions are required. I will follow and report on those actions as they emerge.