'Trump will not struggle to find new ways to divide the Europeans'. Palazzo Chigi Press Office Handout
And so, farewell to the last of the trans-Atlantic US presidents. Donald Trump’s inauguration marks the end of an era: Zeitenwende as the Germans call it. And no, the Europeans won’t be alright.
Over the weekend I was re-reading The World of Yesterday, Stefan Zweig’s autobiography. In what turned out to be the Austrian writer’s last book, published in 1942, he contrasted life at the turn of the 20th century with that in the Thirties. The young people in the late Twenties and early Thirties, he noted, were obsessed with their newly acquired technical gadgets — radios and telephones, and for those who could afford them, cars and planes. They had less freedom though. Zweig noted that his own generation had lived “more cosmopolitan lives, the whole world was open to us. We could travel wherever we liked without a passport or a permit, no one examined us for our attitude, origin, race or religion.” He could be talking about today, and our dying age of globalisation and freedom of movement.
Few Europeans would accept the elegant precision of Zweig. Most are in denial. One of them is Friedrich Merz. He is the German opposition leader, in pole position to win next month’s German elections. And Merz said over the weekend that Donald Trump presented a great opportunity for Germany. He thinks he can entice Trump into agreeing a trade treaty. I wish him luck. Speaking at the same campaign event, Angela Merkel called for a joint European security policy. We would have had one today if only she had initiated it. She was Germany’s chancellor for 16 years.
There is much complacency and wishful thinking in Europe’s discourse about Trump. When he was first elected, the Europeans did not take him seriously. Then, when they realised he was serious, they bet, correctly as it turned out, that he would be defeated at the subsequent elections. But Trump’s defeat simply returned them to the same old complacency. They may be a little less delusional about the direction of US politics after the November elections. But they still don’t have a Trump strategy.
To see what lies in store for Europe, just take a look at who will be at today’s inauguration in Washington DC. Generally considered a domestic event, foreign states are usually represented by diplomats. But in a break with tradition, Trump has invited Giorgia Meloni — the only European head of state on the guest list. Nigel Farage will also be there, and Tino Chupralla, the co-leader of the Alternative for Germany. Éric Zemmour will come from France. Most of the European attendees are leaders of far-Right parties, with a few representatives of other political groups — mostly on the Right — and assorted ambassadors. Trump’s relationship with Europe is not one of a transatlantic alliance of countries, but of parties.
For the Italian Prime Minister, the election of Trump is a lucky break. EU leaders committed a big error when they side-lined her last summer to hand Ursula von der Leyen a second term as president of the European Commission. They did what they always do — formed a coalition among each other without thinking strategically. They had a nominal majority and did not need Meloni’s support. She was blindsided in the unedifying Brussels jobs carousel. In stark contrast, Trump, has called her a great leader and treats her with a respect she does not receive in the EU.
She also has a close relationship with Elon Musk. If she goes ahead buys into Musk’s Starlink satellite system for secure government communications it would be a significant blow for the EU, which is trying to develop its own competing system. I expect to see more bilateral deals with the US that will end up undermining common European projects.
Trump will not struggle to find other ways to divide the Europeans. Take selective tariffs, for example. He cannot single out individual countries, because the EU is a customs union. But he can pick sectors. If he goes after cars, naturally it will be the Germans who will be hit the hardest.
He didn’t start an all-out trade war during his first term. But this time, things are looking more threatening. American media recently reported that Trump and his economics team were considering declaring a state of economic emergency. While this might sound ridiculous, given the strong US growth rates, there is a legal basis for him to do so. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977, allows US presidents to impose sanctions on countries to protect US national security interests. Carter used it in 1979, when he ordered the freeze of all Iranian government assets in the US after the Iranian hostage crisis. Joe Biden more recently used it to impose sanctions on Russia. But it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that Trump could use these sweeping powers in an unorthodox fashion: for tariffs, bypassing the traditional routes of US trade law. Yes, you can be a dictator, legally, and for more than a day.
His priority, as his term begins, will to be reverse the offshoring of sectors he and his team deem critical to US national security, such as rare earths or batteries. While German cars may not be on that particular list, I expect he will give the Germans and the other Europeans a painful transactional choice: either suffer tariffs, or agree to offsetting purchases of US gas and military equipment. Both would be nails in the coffin of the German economic model. The first would lead to more offshoring, as German companies will shift production to the US. The second would make Germany reliant on ever more expensive energy. The forced purchase of US defence equipment, meanwhile, would come at the expense of domestic manufacturers, such as Rheinmetall. It would surely have made more sense for the Europeans to build their own defence industry, but that would have required a strategic foresight that Merkel lacked.
Germany offends Trump on so many levels: the trade surpluses; the low defence spending and the reliance on the US for security; the transition to Green energy and the abolition of nuclear power; immigration policies; and pretty much everything Merkel ever did. He will also certainly remember being laughed at by German diplomats at the UN when he correctly pointed out the geopolitical danger of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia and Germany. Trump was also right when he said the Germans build excellent machines, and yet their armed forces are an under-invested shambles. I think he is right, too, when he complains about Germany’s notorious trade surpluses, which are mistaken for economic strength. Germany was still considered a global economic power-house when Trump first came to office eight years ago. Today, he sees it as an economic basket case. He is not wrong.
Apart from forcing Germany to pay for its own defence, he will also tell them to take a leadership role in Ukraine. Germany won’t want to rise to the occasion, not even under a conservative leader such as Merz. But whether or not Trump succeeds in imposing a peace deal on Russia and Ukraine, it will be the Europeans, and the Germans especially, who will have to pay. The Germans have the strictest fiscal rules in the world, and the largest volume of unfunded projects. Despite what they say, they are not ready to plug the gap left by America.
For while Trump is not the cause of Germany’s weakness, he exposes it like nobody before. And Germany has only itself to blame for its weakness: it chose not to reform its economic models. And it chose not to invest in defence. You do not have to be a Trump supporter to conclude that on the specific bilateral disputes Trump had with Germany, Trump was right, and Germany was wrong.
But the biggest threat to Germany’s governing elites is Trump’s and Musk’s ongoing support for the AfD, a party that advocates a withdrawal from the EU and the euro, and a policy of reversing immigration flows. Musk’s endorsement of the party on X had an immediate effect on its polling. While the AfD is not about to win the elections, the presence of Trump and his continued support would give them a credible path to power.
Trump won’t destroy the EU in a formal sense. He won’t leave Nato either. But he is going to deconstruct the post-war European order in many subtle and not so subtle ways. And he will bring down the perma-coalition of Europe’s centrists which has been running the EU uninterrupted from its inception.
They are the people who are clinging on to their own World of Yesterday. They are the political establishment. They will not be alright.
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.
SubscribeIf TG really “used to think [Harry] left for privacy,” one can probably disregard everything else she thinks about the royals, and human nature in general for that matter. I mean really.
I saw Harry the other day at the INVICTUS GAMES, in The Hague.
He was in his element and it appeared that he couldn’t have been happier. He certainly wasn’t seeking privacy, in any shape or form.
Agreed. What a complete load of tosh. I feel myself aggrieved but I still open my own curtains rather than insisting that one of my minions does so.
It seems as though the author is motivated by some malignant loathing that find its expression in these Tourette style articles
Perhaps she was being facetious- as we all can observe that Harry & his sidekick have crafted a life that is anything but ?
What a truly bitter article, seemingly based on hearsay and the writers republicanism
Sounds like a book review of Tina Brown’s latest. I am listening to it now on audible. Tina Brown reads it in quite a snippy, school-marmish fashion as well, as she reminds her readers (over & over) she’s been covering the royals for years. This review is just a regurgitation. Clearly, Tina isn’t expecting a Royal invite anytime soon.
Speaking as a parent I have to say the task of guiding but not dominating a child is not easy. The Queen has been a perfectly good mother in the context of what was thought the right approach during her life.
The truth is the character of a child is likely to assert itself despite the best endeavours of a parent.
Nature not nurture!
Nature, nurture.
Nelson Mandela was not a particularly good parent either – or husband. But then, you cannot do everything.
As for the rigidity and the suffering – it is a uniquely well-paid job, with palaces and worldwide fame thrown in. Nothing would have prevented Harry from marrying a hairdresser and getting a discreet job as a helicopter pilot in Nome, Alaska. Only that is not what he wanted, is it?
I am guessing it would be hard to parent from prison ?
Indeed. Which is why choosing a ‘career’ that would likely put you in prison – but that would eventually bring down apartheid – was not a very family-friendly choice.
27 years…
What do you mean when you say Mandela was neither a good parent or husband?
I’m astounded this trivial article has been published on Unherd . It has nothing whatsoever to recommend it .
A too harsh appraisal by far. In the fifties, parents of all shades and classes brought up children very differently to the standard child’s upbringing today. Dig into families and their backgrounds and there will often be areas of then practice which do not accord with many contemporary views. Good parents do their best but that often is not enough – such is life. The Queen and the Duke did what they felt was right. Easy to say it wasn’t from a distance of 70 years but not particularly helpful.
“perhaps you can’t mother a nation”
It’s a bit more global than that – it’s The Commonwealth and involves a lot of travel!
We all know the stuff about our own families … and then, one other family – the Royal Family, because of the absurd amount of media attention they’re subjected to. But how much do we believe the media on any other subject?
I think the photo supplied with this article is not flattering and may have been chosen to be unkind.
It’s an old editing trick used by propagandists going all the way back to the Bolsheviks and Goebbels.Choose the most unflattering picture of the subject you dislike to try and influence the reader.
Tbf she is not Harry’s mother and arguably the problem for both Harry and Andrew stems more from delusions of grandeur than it does from lack of parental love.
The behaviour of the Royals (as dysfunctional and varied as any other) has nothing at all to do with ‘Monarchy’ which is a legal and constitutional institution.
It is immaterial what their characters, hopes, fears, jealousies and longings are. These are mere gossip fodder, for people who obviously haven’t got enough to do.
A piece which seeks to excite sympathy for Prince Harry, Princess Margaret and the Duke of Windsor cuts no ice with me.
The author’s first sentence is the only one worth reading: not only is the article unseemly, it’s irrelevant, very poorly timed, and about 50 years too late. Lambasting a 100-year-old for their poor mothering skills really takes the biscuit for bad taste. What a waste of energy.
It’s good to know that UnHerd supports free speech but this piece demonstrates well the peril. And what a mean-spirited piece it is but one that no doubt will gain many upvotes and pile-ons from those that seek out this kind of baloney. Meanwhile, many others get cancelled for expressing their views put out there in the interest of honest discussion.
Tanya Gold is semi-fixated on our British monarchy and its royal family. I have lost count of the number of articles by her on these topics which I have seen.
This suggests to me that, like many Republicans, she is really using that institution and family as proxy for difficulties with her own.
On the topic of aberrant royal persons, I think the giveaway that nullifies most of her argument is the awe-inspiring mediocrity of most of their intelligences.
When the Duke of Windsor arrived with Wallis Simpson for the start of their exile in France, immediately after his Abdication, he asked her ‘What do we do now?’
Pre-marriage, Prince Harry’s only notion of how to spend time – except when he was on duty in the armed forces – was boozing in pubs and clubs, boozing in pubs and clubs, boozing in pubs and clubs. For a while he led his brother down this dead-end road.
A few individuals among them, a very few, are not so mindless. The current Earl of Snowdon (Princess Margaret’s son) has long been a furniture maker.
Yet in the main, confronted by all the furniture of Earth and every means for specialising – as an interest, hobby, spare-time occupation – in any one domain of it, the Royals are at a loss to know what to do with themselves.
I write as a keen supporter of the British monarchy. It is a much better constitutional chieftaincy than any we can elect in what is still a fallen world of sinful human beings.
But I think the inanition of the majority (not all) of royal personages stultifies Ms Gold’s case that they are essentially victims, not willing adherents of the scheme into which they are born. If they had any aspiration – however inarticulate, barely choate – to be un-imprisoned, it would show in their going in for (say) bean-growing or boat-building or any one of thousand other creative activities.
Ouch! Surely it’s the case though that an assessment of the royal parenting would fail by standards applied by our Social Services!
I am not sure what Social Services standards they would fail given that we seem periodically to hear of small children with broken bones and multiple bruises being left with violent unmarried partners who go on to kill them. Do you know something the rest of us don’t about the upbringing of the Queen’s children?
You mean they would probably manifest incorrect ideological opinions? You’re probably right about that.
I remember being shocked to learn that the Queen, as a “young bride” as she was called, moved to Malta to be with her husband. Very romantic but not when you realise she left her two children behind in the UK for years.
It was 1949 to 1951, and we need to understand that it was very common in those days for forces service couples, which was what they were, to leave very young children in the care of family, or in boarding school. Prince Philip was taking a last opportunity to spend time in his previously chosen profession, the Navy. It’s not how parents would deal with things these days, but it was 70 years ago, a whole world away, and it was the custom and practice at that time.
For me I enjoyed reading this article. Nelson Mandela and the queen have been incredible leaders. However, I don’t think it is enough (although understandable) to say that it’s ok that maybe they weren’t the best parents because they were good leaders of a country. I would argue that to be a half decent parent is more important than a great worldwide leader. It seems like the key here is a lack of emotional attachment which was common in that era together with childhoods spent in boarding schools (there is quite a lot of literature about the damage that this causes) and a mother with the incredible responsibility of being the Queen and the perhaps impossible mission of being able to attend to her children.
I am arguing that if the world was full of half decent parents the world would inevitably have a lot more emotionally healthy children and that would surely have a transformative effect on society.
I would also take issue with palaces and worldwide fame being a good thing. An upbringing, maybe without emotional attachment matched with these surroundings, creates a bit of a prison I think. Is it any wonder that Harry would not feel that he can marry anybody he wants or do any job he wants? Although he has talked about living a normal life he seems to be unable to do so. That is no surprise given what he is used to. To break free would surely require a great amount of courage that I don’t think hardly anybody has.
I think that we have it wrong believing that riches equals happiness. To generalise I would argue that a middle class (to have enough so as not to be constantly stressing about where money is coming from) upbringing is the most positive environment and least constricting for children and adults making their way in the world. The constant worshipping of celebrities on tv and glorification and berating of the rich suggests that we should keep aiming higher. Not to do so would be a failure and having enough is not enough. I know that I have been taken in to this way of thinking.
I think we should show some understanding for children who grow up surrounded by great wealth. It rarely seems a healthy environment to live a contented life.
I’d agree with your evaluation of the costs, but you have to agree that being a prince is a pretty well rewarded career. I just get a little impatient with people who refuse to pay the price – but still want to keep the advantages that they did not earn but got for being born to the right parents.
Total tripe. The Royal Family behave in the way they do because they think that they are special. Harry believes that he really has a message for mankind that is worth millions of dollars. Andrew thinks that young women want to have sex with him and that he is so clever he can lie his way out of trouble. Margaret could have had the man she claimed to love but he was not worth renouncing her title and perks. So desperate was she to be treated like a common person, she insisted on being called ‘Princess’ by even her closest friends. Charles feels he has the right to meddle in the democratic process. William seems to agree that politics, read ‘democracy’, is a dangerous practice where the plebs disobey their Royal betters.
Fortunately, our Caribbean brothers and sisters have made it clear that they are sick of being lectured about the evils of slavery by a family that refuses to look at its own history of imperial enrichment. Hopefully, the British will get off their knees soon and take back the land that this German family have stolen.
Great article, hugely enjoyable. Thanks, Tanya.
I guess this remark is satirical…