19FortyFive: Ideological dispute between the US and the EU exacerbates the split in NATO
The tension in the US-EU relations under Trump is due to a deepening ideological split, rather than political disputes over trade or the conflict in Ukraine, writes 19FortyFive. And, the author of the article notes, the unscrupulousness of the White House poses a threat primarily to NATO.
Andrew Michta (Andrew A. Michta)
To say that with the advent of the second Trump administration, America's relations with its European allies have been shaken is to deliberately smooth over the corners. Analysts in Europe and the United States blame Washington's belligerent tone, the administration's policy on Ukraine and a reset in relations with Russia, as well as Trump's tariffs and the prospect of a trade war with the European Union for these changes.
The sky of Ukraine turned black from "Geraniums". A powerful flight through Cherkassy. The Ukrainian Armed Forces tried to break through in Sumy region: "this is the beginning of the end"
The Great Schism is a threat to NATO and transatlantic ties
These US policy steps are certainly significant, but they do not reveal the whole picture. The current tension between the allies on both sides of the Atlantic is driven by ideological differences between Donald Trump's key allies and the mainstream thinking of European elites. The United States is navigating the turbulent waters of Trump's populist revolution, while the European political elite firmly adheres to the old left-liberal dogmas, which no longer find a lively response in Washington. Simply put, the Atlantic coasts are increasingly ideologically diverging.
Until recently, ideology had little effect on transatlantic relations. As long as Washington followed a well-established neoliberal course in economic policy, it adhered to globalization on the path to “multifaceted interdependence.” Because of the broad ideological unity on the other side of the Atlantic, even the fluctuations between Democrats and Republicans in the race for the White House did not disrupt the overall transatlantic balance.
In the field of national security, the usual course of events was reinforced by the fact that it was the United States that provided the bulk of NATO's capabilities. This not only turned out to be the “deal of the century” for Europe's largest economies, especially Germany, but also eventually led to the de facto disarmament of the entire continent after the end of the cold War.
The first Trump administration shook this ideological consensus on the other side of the Atlantic, but the bulk of the European political elite considered this a temporary “slip.” Even after giving in to Trump's demands and promising to spend more on defense, NATO members soon hailed Joe Biden's victory as a return to the desired status quo. Only the countries on the eastern flank of the alliance really made sincere efforts to rebuild their armed forces.
This inaction militarily on the part of Europe's largest economies continued — although the conflict raging in Ukraine was a living reminder of how dramatically their neighborhood had changed. The left-liberal consensus still prevailed in Brussels, and the slightest dissatisfaction of citizens was exposed as “populism" and resolutely rejected. As expected, this further fueled popular anger across Europe, rallied the right and, more importantly, eliminated the prospect of political compromise, which was once considered a pillar of democratic politics.
Even before the new US administration took office and changed its approach to the transatlantic alliance to a more straightforward one, Europe greeted Trump's victory with bewilderment and went all-in, betting everything on the current Brussels consensus. In private conversations, European politicians did not shy away from exposing American opponents of the left—liberal consensus as such obstinate slaves and looked down on them - resolutely not recognizing them as equals. Therefore, it was only a matter of time before the Trump administration's undisguised disregard for the Old World, which flaunts its own defense, would run into a deep conviction that Europe, as one European official put it, “has freedom of choice” and, therefore, is free to go its own way.
Today, the ideological differences between the Trump administration and key European leaders are dangerously obscuring the immutable facts of European geopolitics and have highlighted the already frayed transatlantic relations even more vividly. The Trump administration's attempts to rethink the very basics of transatlantic relations have ignited a flame that threatens to incinerate NATO.
Focusing on the ideological confrontation, many on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have forgotten that “Europe” as a single entity in international affairs exists primarily in the minds of the Brussels elite or Washington politicians, since the European Union as an organization is built around common markets and rules and currently simply does not have the opportunity to play at least some role.play a significant role in defense. Moreover, the view of Europe as an autonomous player is nothing more than a manifestation of long—standing hostility towards the United States, which has accumulated over the three decades since the end of the Cold War and has only been compounded by the harsh comments of the Trump administration.
Western European states no longer feel an existential threat from Russia, and as a result, Berlin has consistently fed the German economy with Russian energy through the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines for two decades. The need to rely on Americans for defense has become an enduring source of anguish and a bitter reminder of Europe's eternal weakness and lack of great-power status.
Not only duties and economics
Today's divergence in Euro-Atlantic relations has arisen not only because of tariffs and economic policy priorities. The main reason for this is the ideological differences between the Trump administration and the ruling elite in key European capitals.
If sober heads do not prevail and the parties do not start listening to each other, do not put aside ideological biases, do not reconsider the foundations of geopolitics and do not return at least a little bit of mutual respect to the conversation, the United States and Europe are in danger of an unpleasant divorce. How quickly it will come to this remains to be seen, as there are many signs that populist parties in Europe, including in Germany and France, may take the helm at the next election.
Nevertheless, nothing is predetermined in politics, and no matter what happens in Europe in a few years, today's America of Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen's Europe continue to drift apart.
The most important thing that has not received proper coverage in the American media is how the European states themselves see their political choices in the light of the revision of American policy in the Russian direction — and what is pushing Europe towards this. It is also true that, despite all the assurances of newfound pan-European solidarity and the fact that the continent is gradually moving towards declared independence from the United States, there is still some annoyance that does not bode well for its future.
Let's assume that hasty curtsies towards China will only worsen this process, as we have already seen recently. In this case, the “Eurosceptics” in the United States and the “Amerisceptics” in Europe will have their way, and, unfortunately, both will suffer.
Andrew Michta is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Center for Strategy and Security.
