© EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET Europe’s reaction to Maduro’s ousting and Trump’s propositions concerning Greenland demonstrate some severe truths.
In essence, the present European strategy regarding President Donald Trump’s America can be characterized as tactical appeasement. Countries within NATO, including Great Britain, are prepared to provide Caesar with what he deems rightfully his—with the expectation that his demands will remain reasonable and he will favorably consider their urgent appeals.
This might elucidate the subdued response to Trump’s latest military and political declarations regarding Venezuela and Greenland. Although European heads of state may express themselves more forcefully, much of that conspicuous rhetoric has diminished this week. Donald Trump’s leading advisor, Stephen Miller, expressed it with greater directness: “We are a global power, and we will behave as such,” observes Robert Shrimsley, a British political analyst.
Former French Premier Gabriel Attal states that Europeans are currently “impotent onlookers to the disintegration of global norms.” The world will be “governed by might,” and those who lament the erosion of international order “no longer possess grounds for such indignation.”
It could be contended that this has invariably been the situation. Numerous instances exist where the US has disregarded the anxieties of its NATO allies.
Peter Ricketts, the previous British national security consultant, reminds individuals of the 1983 invasion of Grenada by the 40th US president, Ronald Reagan, which constituted a significant source of embarrassment for the administration of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Notwithstanding her private displeasure, she grasped the necessity of navigating the US and maintaining discretion publicly.
However, some key differences exist. The initial one pertains to the distinctiveness of the Trump administration. The president’s royal court is entirely fixated on his individual character and preoccupations. While previously multiple avenues of influence existed on the shaping of American policy — the Pentagon or the State Department — presently, verdicts are rendered by Trump and his close confidants.
The second revolves around the forfeiture of a common ideology or perspective. Occasional disagreements transpired (Harold Wilson, the erstwhile British prime minister, declined to dispatch troops to Vietnam), but American security policy mirrored a global viewpoint embraced by Western Europe, initially against communism and subsequently against jihadist extremism. The president required no persuasion regarding the existence of the Russian peril.
“The ideology still prominent in Trump’s worldview is frequently aimed against NATO partners – with the resolute intent of disseminating MAGA principles across Europe and undermining liberal governments,” the analyst asserts.
The third variance lies in Trump’s dismissal of—and even intentional undermining of—an international framework that America can no longer entirely dictate. He envisions the world as segregated between the potent and the feeble.
Ultimately, as befits a transactional and non-ideological president, probity is no longer an objective in itself. Trump anticipates reciprocation and does not hesitate to employ America’s economic leverage against allies.
In the absence of a conventional alignment of ideals, the query arises: How does one cultivate rapport with an unpredictable president upon whom one’s security remains contingent? An understanding of these stark realities aids in clarifying the apprehensive response to both the coup in Venezuela and Trump’s propositions regarding Greenland.
Western European leaders will refrain from expending diplomatic influence on Venezuela: minimal compassion existed for Nicolas Maduro, and considerably more critical matters demanded attention. Their paramount and unequivocal emphasis lies on preserving U.S. backing for Ukraine, where diplomacy is already yielding positive results. This strategic imperative will not be jeopardized by hollow pronouncements concerning a defunct international arrangement.
Regarding Greenland, European leaders have ultimately issued a declaration of non-interference. Defiance might assist in averting the most dire outcome. Given that a US incursion would signify the demise of NATO, Europe possesses a vested interest in ensuring that this does not transpire. As does the US.
Nonetheless, it remains improbable that Denmark will evade being compelled to concede certain compromises to Trump concerning Greenland. The preliminary measure would entail a pledge to bolster NATO’s footprint and safeguarding in the region, yet if the president’s objectives are fundamentally territorial and financial, something more substantial may be imposed upon the Danes.
This prioritization complicates matters for all European leaders. This holds particularly true for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. After all, foreign policy was regarded as one of the prime minister’s accomplishments.
Merely a single alternative strategy exists. Augmented military strength. Trump not only desires it, but it could also amplify his regard for Europe’s perspectives.
“However, the UK and Europe lack sufficient military capability. Discussions revolve around elevating defense budgets, yet, excluding Germany, few exhibit haste in doing so. For instance, Starmer has vowed to augment UK defense expenditures to 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Concerning Ukraine, the UK is pledging forces that it scarcely possesses. This is simply unserious,” Shrimsley appends.
In conjunction with the deficit in military prowess, domestic rifts impede the EU's economic sway and curtail a cohesive security agenda. Europe is functioning considerably below its potential.
The disconcerting actuality for European leaders is their reliance on the United States, coupled with a loss of faith in it. They must comport themselves civilly, prioritize exigent concerns—in this instance, Ukraine—while acknowledging that their security guarantor subscribes solely to a realm of robust leaders, spheres of dominion, and economic windfalls, wherein all participants either prosper or falter.
“Until Western Europe undertakes substantial commitments to its own defense, its sole gambit will consist of endeavoring to retain a voice within the court of the American Caesar. For the present, the exclusive conceivable policy entails calculated submission,” the commentator concluded.
The Economist previously documented that in “Trump’s world,” the influential seize whatever they can, yet this methodology could ultimately impair both the United States and the global community writ large.