The Economist: Europe Faces a Trump-Led America—Time to Rethink Its Geopolitical Future

The Economist: Europe Faces a Trump-Led America—Time to Rethink Its Geopolitical Future

In this week article titled “Europe could become Trump’s geopolitical roadkill,” The Economist Charlemagne asks a pressing question: Where does Europe stand with a possible re-election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. President in November? Given the already unstable and dangerous geopolitical landscape, this scenario would place Europe in a precarious position—caught between U.S. isolationism and a rising China-Russia bloc. The possibility of another Trump presidency is not something Europeans would wish upon their American allies, especially considering the broader consequences. Such an election could, in fact, mark the end of the American experiment, as it aligns with Plato’s cyclical view of history where democracies degrade into authoritarianism.

A key question resurfaces: Who does one call in Europe? This issue, long attributed to Henry Kissinger but famously unresolved, is even more difficult to answer today with the absence of Angela Merkel—a figure of stability and authority. In the current landscape, no leader in Europe commands Merkel’s stature or influence.

In 2020, I noted, “The suffocation of American exceptionalism under Trump returned the U.S. to a Hobbesian jungle, abandoning protection of a free liberal society, human rights, and international law. Instead of global leadership, the administration embraced racism, xenophobia, nationalism, isolationism, and falsehoods.”

The election of Joe Biden in 2020 brought relief to many, with a renewed focus on responsible leadership, multilateralism, and addressing key issues like climate change, the economy, healthcare, and international conflicts. Biden’s presidency represented a return to normalcy and an attempt to restore America’s reputation as a trusted global leader.

However, Biden’s approach has been marked by missionary impulses and an overextension of America’s strategic ambitions. His administration’s attempt to simultaneously counter Russia in Ukraine and pursue a hostile strategy against China has been misguided. This dual-front strategy risks long-term conflicts that are neither sustainable nor in the best interests of global stability. The U.S. continues to engage in an ideological contest that feels disconnected from the broader existential challenges of our time, such as climate change and global health crises.

For Europeans, the Trump-Biden era has mostly meant returning to the familiar position of following America into global power contests. Europe has failed to respond to the shifting tides of global power. Instead of asserting its strategic autonomy, the EU has continued to play the role of a junior partner, dependent on an often unpredictable U.S. patron. While some leaders, such as Emmanuel Macron, have called for greater independence, the EU has been unable to act decisively on these aspirations.

On a European level, a growing far-right movement, particularly in countries like Hungary under Viktor Orbán, continues to undermine the EU from within by disregarding judicial independence, press freedom, and cultural diversity. These nationalist governments delay European decision-making and contribute to democracy backsliding, dividing the Union and threatening its core values. At the same time, the East-West divide that has persisted since the fall of the Berlin Wall continues to limit the EU’s ability to unify and act effectively on the global stage.

The expansion of the EU, particularly the inclusion of Central and Eastern European states, has exacerbated this divide. Central European countries, with their strong pro-American stance, see the U.S. as a more reliable security partner than France or Germany. The war in Ukraine and the EU’s enlargement strategy have only added to this strain, highlighting the need for consolidation rather than further expansion. Europe’s reliance on the U.S. for security has prevented the development of a fully independent European defence strategy.

The 2024 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be a critical moment, not just for America but for the world. A second Trump presidency would bring with it nihilism, crony capitalism, and authoritarianism, supported by a compliant Republican Party. The stakes for the rule of law and the survival of democracy have never been higher. For Europe, this would mean paying the price for being a U.S. protectorate—a situation that has limited its sovereignty and weakened its global standing.

Under Trump, trade imbalances will likely return to the table, especially at a time when bridges with China are being burned due to America’s escalating competition with the rising power. Europe will have to re-evaluate its relationship with the U.S., and this reassessment is long overdue.

In the case of Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s much-anticipated “Victory Plan” appears detached from current realities and lacks practical viability. Amid heavy losses and a war-weary public, the plan fails to offer a clear, attainable path forward. The term “Victory Plan” itself is poorly chosen, as it shifts the focus from the defence of Ukraine’s freedom to an outright confrontation with Russia. In this context, prioritizing stability over escalating the conflict is more prudent than pursuing overly ambitious goals. The EU now faces a significant dilemma: how long can it sustain economic and military aid to Ukraine without a ceasefire in sight?

Europe must step back and reassess its involvement in this conflict, keeping a strategic and diplomatic resolution in view. The future relationship with Russia is a critical challenge. For over a thousand years, Europe and Russia have engaged in wars, each determined by the shifting balance of power. While this war is no different, its resolution will also depend on such dynamics. Despite ideological differences, Russia has always been part of Europe’s cultural and historical fabric. Both must find a way to coexist under the same geopolitical roof. After the Ukraine conflict, the question remains: will Russia remain a permanent adversary, or can a pragmatic relationship be rebuilt, acknowledging its deep roots in European history? This decision will shape Europe’s geopolitical strategy for the future.

In conclusion, the EU’s failure to capitalize on the opportunity presented by German unification in 1992 has left it in a weakened state. Its enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe has diluted its integration and increased U.S. influence within the bloc. With or without Trump potentially returning to power, Europe must break free from its role as an American protectorate and forge a path towards strategic autonomy. Only by translating its economic power into geopolitical influence can Europe establish a more balanced, independent role in the world.

Europe needs to prepare for a harsher global environment, and that means developing a more compartmentalized strategy—one that resists being drawn into global power contests and America’s wars of convenience. Europe must take responsibility for its foreign and security policy, or risk irrelevance in the evolving global order.

WJJH-16.10.2024

Diatribe: The Economist article highlights Europe’s precarious geopolitical position amidst the potential re-election of Trump, discussing the need for greater strategic autonomy. European reliance on U.S. security undermines its global standing, compounded by rising nationalism and internal divisions. Time to reassess the relationships with the U.S. China and Russia for future stability.