X Close

How Trump could liberate Europe His isolationism is an opportunity

What will Trump do for Europe? Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What will Trump do for Europe? Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


November 7, 2024   5 mins

The EU’s worst nightmare has come true: Donald Trump is returning to the White House. It’s not difficult to picture the panic that must be sweeping through Europe’s capitals. Most European leaders, after all, have spent the past four years undermining the EU’s strategic interests by submissively aligning themselves with the Biden Administration’s reckless foreign policy everywhere from China to Gaza. The result? Europe today is more politically, economically and militarily vassalised to America than at any point since 1945.

More to the point, European elites have allowed themselves to be dragged by Washington into a disastrous proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, condemning their citizens to collapsing industry and rising prices. That’s even as the conflict in Eastern Europe exposes the continent to unprecedented military risks, including the genuine possibility of nuclear war. Yet despite all these sacrifices, all that eagerness to do the Pentagon’s bidding, Trump’s isolationist bent means it could ultimately all be for nothing.

For the past few years, the EU’s leaders have framed their entire foreign policy in American terms. Nato expansionism; economically decoupling from Russia; supporting Ukraine’s victory-at-all-costs strategy — each has been justified in the name of preserving the transatlantic alliance, even at the expense of Europe’s actual interests. Under Biden, that meant embracing a hawkish agenda grounded in aggressively countering any challenges to US hegemony, all supposedly part of an existential struggle between democracy and tyranny.

But with Trump back in charge, and his administration likely to pursue an isolationist bent, all these sacrifices risk being pointless. Though the president-elect is unlikely to withdraw from Nato altogether, he has expressed scepticism towards the alliance during his campaign. Among other things, that has involved criticising European countries for failing to meet defence spending targets, even suggesting that the US might not protect Nato members if they don’t pull their weight.

It’s easy to see why this prospect alarms the EU establishment. For years, they have backed the “mutually reinforcing roles” of Nato and the European Union, both as a bulwark against Russia and to ensure Western dominance globally. A weakened US commitment to Nato therefore threatens the very foundations of the EU’s newfound ideological identity: an extension of the American umbrella. No less important, the potential withdrawal of American arms and cash from Kyiv would seriously hamper the EU’s ability to continue the proxy war in Ukraine alone, especially given the tight finances and sluggish military-industrial complex of many member states. Trump himself has hinted in just this direction, notably criticising Volodymyr Zelenskyy for allegedly starting the war with Putin.

Trump has even suggested he might unilaterally impose a ceasefire and peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. This is unlikely to happen: Russia, which is winning on the battlefield, will push for such a hard bargain that even Trump may struggle to accept. A more likely outcome, then, is that the incoming Republican administration will continue to deliver weapons to Kyiv but ask Europe to foot the bill — a situation that would allow the conflict to smoulder on, even as Europe gets poorer. That’s despite the fact that even Western media outlets are now conceding that the war in Ukraine is lost.

“A more likely outcome is that the incoming Republican administration will continue to deliver weapons to Kyiv but ask Europe to foot the bill.”

This outcome could, perhaps, be avoided: if European leaders understood that putting an end to the war in Ukraine, and normalising relations with Russia, are in the continent’s ultimate economic and security interests. If they were clever, they might even seize upon Trump’s instinctive isolationism and push for a settlement themselves.

But given this would oblige Europe’s elite to totally reverse their policy on Ukraine — thereby admitting their own failure — that is an unlikely outcome. This is doubly true when you consider that such a volte-face would oblige the Europeans to finally take Russian security concerns seriously, a shift that would instantly undermine the anti-Moscow narrative they’ve been honing for years. Given, moreover, the vast economic pain the EU’s pro-Kyiv stance has caused regular Europeans, the resulting political backlash would obviously be devastating for ruling parties.

Beyond these short-term concerns, though, there are deeper geopolitical considerations. For one thing, making peace with Russia would force European leaders to finally acknowledge the multipolar order that now exists right across the globe, a reality whereby a free and independent Europe could act as a bridge between the West and the emerging Eurasian powers of the young century. For another, it would force them to realise that their future lies in breaking free from Washington’s grip, rejecting the latter’s desperate attempts to preserve its authority.

Yet if Trump’s burgeoning isolationism should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat, such a dramatic realignment isn’t going to happen: at least not for a while. Most EU leaders are just too wedded to transatlanticism — ideologically, psychologically and materially — to fully escape, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. That’s why I don’t share the optimism of those who claim that Trump’s focus on “America First” policies will push the EU to pursue greater strategic autonomy. In any case, for as long as people like Ursula von der Leyen control the levers of power in Brussels, a “European Nato” would probably be even more aggressive towards Russia than the Biden Administration.

At the same time, and notwithstanding his isolationist noises, it’s ultimately naïve to assume that Trump would happily “let go” of Europe. Put it like this: that Trump wants Europe to pay for its own defence doesn’t mean he supports a more geopolitically assertive continent. Just consider the efforts his administration put into stopping the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline. Any move towards greater European strategic autonomy would, therefore, inevitably mean managing an American backlash. It goes without saying that such a programme would require backbone, strategic vision and intellectual finesse — none of which is exactly plentiful among Europe’s political class.

In the short term, then, the most likely outcome is that EU leaders will attempt to adjust to a Trump presidency and avoid awkward clashes. The tone may be different, but expect the Europeans to continue tolerating subordination to US interests.

The longer-term impact of Trump’s victory on the European political landscape is harder to predict. His victory will surely embolden Right-populist leaders across the continent, from Viktor Orbán in Hungary to Giorgia Meloni in Italy. That, in turn, has the potential to further weaken mainstream parties, and ultimately accelerate the continent’s hurdling realignment. To be clear: this won’t have an immediate political impact, especially given European populists differ in their policies towards Ukraine and other foreign policy issues.

Over the longer term, though, the strengthening of national conservatism in the West could have serious geopolitical implications. To start with, Russia’s rejection of the excesses of liberalism make it something of a “natural” ally of Western conservatives, particularly in a world where ideologies are increasingly framed as “national-patriotism” versus “cosmopolitan-globalism”. Moreover, to the extent that conservatives reject progressive universalism at home, embracing the cultural distinctiveness in their own countries, they should also be opposed to the same ideas internationally. It would surely be wise, then, to support the attempts of China, Russia and other Brics to foment respect for the civilisational specificity and traditional values of all nations, along the way dumping the EU and the liberal-universalist claims it stands for. In this sense, Trump may yet prove to be a crucial if unwitting ally in the Brics’ attempt to build a more “conservative” world order. That, in the end, is probably what the EU’s techno-globalist establishment should fear more than anything.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

6 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
2 hours ago

This author mistakes his own opinions for facts. Truly, unless he is a mind-reader, he does not know what DJT will do. His first term perhaps offers some clues …. he will firmly encourage Europeans nations to do the right thing and pony up for their own defense.

About NATO, it is eminently unfair for America to pour a huge proportion of its GDP into the military, while European nations save money and pay for generous social welfare programs. To protect the vineyard is as important as planting your vines …..

Bernard Brothman
Bernard Brothman
1 hour ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

We applauded Trump when he berated NATO members for not spending enough on defense. If Europeans want NATO, then they have to spend 2% of GDP or more on defense.
Besides defense, NATO and the EU need to revisit their Green policies. Perhaps some of you remember President Trump calling our Germany in a UN speech for being too dependent on Russian oil and gas. He was right.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
3 hours ago

Wow, the us didn’t force these policies on the eu. Russia and their own bad decisions did that. Who would have thought being weak and dependent on Russia could go wrong?

Bad Captain
Bad Captain
4 minutes ago
Reply to  Bret Larson

There is a weird strain of conspiracy theorist who believes Biden and the neocons bewitched all the Europeans to go all in on the Ukraine because … why?

It’s unclear to me why this narrative continues to persist. If you talk to the average Northern European, they’re not thrilled about russia flexing its muscles.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 hour ago

Let’s not call Trump’s foreign policy “isolationism.” Let’s call it Monroe Doctrine 2.0.
And let’s not forget Monty’s advice. Rule One: Don’t invade Russia. Rule Two: Don’t invade China.
Personally, my solution to the Ukraine problem is to rename Lviv as Lemberg, as it was in the good old days of Austria-Hungary when Lemberg was the capital of Galicia and Austrian economist von Mises was born.

David McKee
David McKee
2 hours ago

For American readers: Fazi is part of a small minority in Europe which thinks like this. People like me, think his views are deranged. Putin is not a conservative by any means. He’s an ethno-nationalist who wants to recreate the Soviet Union, with a crony capitalist economy. He is certainly not our friend.

Last edited 2 hours ago by David McKee