Unlock the free White House Watch newsletter
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
Two words now summarize Donald Trump’s European policy toward the United States: strategic prayer. NATO countries, including Britain, will hand over to Caesar everything he declares to be his – in the hope that he does not ask for too much and considers their most urgent requests kindly.
This perhaps explains the muted reactions to Trump’s latest military and diplomatic claims on Venezuela and Greenland. European leaders may talk a big game but much of the pretense has gone away this week. Donald Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, was more succinct: “We are a superpower and we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.”
former french prime minister gabriel atal Says Europeans are now “powerless spectators as global rules unravel”. The world would be “ruled by force” and those who mourn the loss of international order would “no longer have the means for such outrage”.
One could argue that it was quite long. There have been many cases where the US ignored the concerns of NATO partners. Former UK national security adviser Lord Ricketts reminds people of Ronald Reagan’s 1983 invasion of Grenada, which was a major embarrassment for Margaret Thatcher’s government. Despite all her private anger, she knew she had to fight her own battle with America and hold her tongue in public.
But there are important differences. The first is the unique nature of the Trump regime. The President’s royal court is entirely centered around his personality and heals thoughtsWhere there once were other avenues into American policymaking – the Pentagon or the State Department – decisions now go through Trump and his circle,
The second is the loss of common ideology or analysis. There were occasional divisions (Harold Wilson refused to send troops to Vietnam) but American security policy reflected a worldview shared by Western Europe, primarily opposing communism or, later, jihadist terror. No president needed convincing about the Russian threat.
The ideology underlying Trump’s approach often turns against NATO allies, with a determination to spread MAGA values across Europe and destabilize liberal governments.
The third difference is Trump’s rejection and indeed subversion of an international order that the US can no longer control. He only sees a world divided between the strong and the weak.
Finally, for a transactional and non-ideological presidency, virtue is no longer its own reward. Trump is hopeful of a comeback and is not afraid to turn America’s economic power against allies.
Without traditional alignment of ideals, how do you manage a fickle president on whom your security still depends? Recognizing these difficult truths helps explain the hesitant response to both the Venezuelan coup and their threats to Greenland. Western European leaders will not waste diplomatic capital on Venezuela. There was no love for Nicolas Maduro and he has bigger fish to fry. His focus is rightly and largely on keeping the US at bay on Ukraine, where diplomacy is bearing some fruit. This strategic priority will not be jeopardized by making idle claims about the lost international order.
On Greenland, European leaders ultimately had to make ill-considered statements. Defiance can help avoid the worst outcome. Since a US attack would spell the end of NATO, Europe has an incentive to ensure it does not reach that point. In fact, America does the same.
But it is hard to believe that Denmark will not be forced to make some kind of compromise with Trump over Greenland. The first pitch would be a pledge to increase NATO’s presence and security there, but if the president’s objectives are primarily territorial and economically extractive, something more substantial could be imposed on the Danes.
This kind of prioritization makes life uncomfortable for all European leaders. For Keir Starmer, this is especially true. Foreign policy was considered one of the Prime Minister’s successes. (He has been absurdly attacked as a “never here Kier” for spending time on crises directly impacting the UK). Against calls for a more combative stance toward Trump, he struggles to communicate geopolitical realities.
There is only one alternative approach. More military power. Trump not only wants to see this, but it may also increase his respect for Europe’s ideas. But Britain and Europe do not have enough hard power. They talk about high defense spending but Germany, on the one hand, is doing little in a hurry. For example, Starmer has committed to increasing UK defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2035. In Ukraine’s case, the UK is promising forces it barely has. This is not serious at all.
In addition to the lack of military power, national divisions are hampering the EU’s economic strength and hampering a coherent security policy. Europe punches well below its potential weight.
The uncomfortable reality for Europe’s leaders is that they need an America they no longer trust. They should play nice, prioritizing pressing issues – in this case Ukraine – while recognizing their security guarantor believes only in a zero-sum world of strongmen, spheres of influence and economic returns.
Until Western Europe seriously commits to its defense, its only strategy is to try to retain its voice in the court of the American Caesar. For now, calculated insults are the only predictable policy.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com
