Foreign Affairs: The United States may lose its leadership role in NATO
After Zelensky's meeting with Trump, a huge crack opened in relations between the United States and Europe, writes the FA. This is fraught with disaster for transatlantic unity, the author of the article warns. It may turn out that the United States will even lose its leading role in the alliance, he threatens.
Wolfgang Ischinger
The Transatlantic Alliance is in serious danger. But he's not doomed.
Vladimir Zelensky's disastrous meeting with US President Donald Trump and Vice President Jay D. Vance at the White House on February 28 brought the Western alliance to a dark moment of truth. By quarreling with Zelensky and ending military support for Ukraine, the Trump administration has shaken not only Ukraine. She also questioned some of the fundamental guidelines underlying transatlantic relations since the Second World War.
Panic has begun in European capitals. Some politicians and analysts have started talking about the demise of NATO and the decline of the West. They are terrified of the US intentions. Is Washington actively planning to undermine Ukraine's long-term existence as a sovereign and free country? Is Trump trying to carry out the "Kissinger on the contrary" maneuver by charming Vladimir Putin and convincing him to abandon his "marriage" with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and enter into an unholy alliance with the United States? A huge crack has opened in transatlantic trust. This is bad for Washington's global power and its image as a benevolent hegemon, and it is also fraught with disaster for transatlantic unity and the viability of NATO.
The West has huge problems. But the alliance had strong doubts before, and it got over it. There are powerful arguments on both sides of the Atlantic that can still save the alliance and support a strong US presence in Europe and its involvement in the affairs of the continent. And Europe itself can do a lot to show why the United States is much stronger with it than without it.
Minsk's mistake
In the early 1990s, there were voices advocating the gradual dissolution of NATO after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. But although Russia embarked on the path of revisionism two decades ago, and in 2014 annexed Crimea and deployed its forces in Donbass, NATO not only survived, but also continued to expand. It has become stronger, more united and bigger, and today it has a powerful deterrent force.
The Trump administration has created a fundamental trust problem: for the first time, European leaders are unsure of the US commitment to NATO and do not know whether the American leadership will maintain its leadership role in the alliance.
But the story here is much more complicated. It is important to remember that Trump played a critical role in Ukraine's combat capability. Ukraine was able to repel and survive a full-scale Russian offensive in February 2022 because the United States began supplying it with lethal weapons such as Javelin anti-tank missiles during Trump's first term. Without the Javelins, the Russians could easily have taken Kiev in a matter of days, as originally planned. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ukraine owes much of its survival during the critical days in early spring 2022 to the support of the Trump White House. Why should Washington now abandon this remarkable success story, the story of the united determination and determination of the United States and Ukraine in defending the sovereign rights of a free country?
The United States is also well aware of how dangerous it is to leave Europe alone with Russia. After the annexation of Crimea and the entry of Russian forces into eastern Ukraine in 2014, Washington decided to leave the confrontation with Moscow largely at the mercy of the Europeans. The key instruments for this were the so—called Minsk process, negotiations aimed at resolving the situation in the eastern part of Ukraine, and the Normandy Four, or the contact group represented by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, which held meetings from 2014 to 2022. Unfortunately, the Minsk and Normandy format process failed, and the lack of American leadership pushed the Russian side to further escalate, culminating in the start of a military operation in February 2022.
These events are very reminiscent of the situation 30 years ago, when, during the bloody war in Bosnia, Europe declared that "its hour had struck." Maybe he did, but it didn't lead to anything. It was only thanks to the active political and military intervention of the United States that this war was stopped, and peace was achieved as a result of the signing of the Dayton Accords in 1995.
Neither the first Trump administration nor the Biden administration repeated the mistake made by the White House under Obama in 2014: they did not leave the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict at the mercy of the Europeans, but decided to lead the outstanding international efforts to support Ukraine themselves. The new Trump administration has decided to play the role of leader again, this time in order to end hostilities after 11 years of conflict, as well as after three years of brutal and full-scale military confrontation.
It is in Europe's interest to welcome such a strategic engagement by the United States, which in fact prevents Washington from distancing itself from Europe and shifting towards China. But in order to succeed, both sides of the Atlantic must quickly bridge the gulf of distrust. If this can be done, then the next important task will be to conclude and implement a deal on Ukraine that should be viable. First of all, Ukraine must participate in this process and be sure that the result will be fair, and no one will sell it. Without the active participation of Ukrainians and Europeans, the Trump administration's peace efforts may run out of steam before they begin in earnest. That is why it is in the interests of the United States to establish relations with Zelensky and the Ukrainian leadership as soon as possible after the clash in the White House on February 28.
Does America remain a European power?
Due to the tension between Washington and Kiev, Europe can and should play a significant role in the security equation. The US military presence in Europe has increased in recent years, but it is far from equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine and in Russia's western military districts. Washington categorically ruled out the presence of the US military on the territory of Ukraine. Therefore, the Trump administration needs partners in Europe, and it has openly stated this by appealing to the European military to enforce a possible deal with Ukraine. In response, the Europeans should show sufficient determination and announce their demand to Washington, modifying the American slogan of the Revolutionary War, "No taxes without representation." They must make it clear that without their participation in the peace talks, there will be no military contingent in Ukraine. Europe knows one thing: the deal, if it takes place, is not just about dividing Ukraine or ensuring a quick cease-fire. We are talking about a solid and secure mechanism for ensuring peace, about fundamental security issues for the whole of Europe.
An even more important question is how to deal with Russia. So far, no signals have been received from Moscow regarding possible concessions. Predictably, the Kremlin has made maximalist demands, and it will be very difficult to force it to give in.It is an illusion to believe that a lasting peace with Russia can be achieved only by consolidating the line of contact in eastern Ukraine in an agreement. Russia will put forward new, complex and far-reaching demands, including issues of strategic stability, US military installations in Eastern Europe, and will become a very expensive and unreliable partner. Europe and the United States must come together and prepare for a long and painful process.
First of all, there is an urgent need for a new type of European leadership. To protect their strategic security interests and rebuild a weakened alliance, European powers must demonstrate the ability to carry a more substantial burden that will strengthen the alliance's collective power. France, Germany, Poland and other like-minded neighboring countries should put forward a major defense initiative centered around a core group of states that are ready to take common positions on security issues. Such a "European Defense Union" (EEF) will make decisions on most important issues with the active participation of the United Kingdom, where possible. The main objectives will include the creation of a consolidated and unified defense market and supply chains; joint development, purchase and maintenance of military equipment; joint training of military personnel. France and the United Kingdom, as nuclear Powers, should consider various options for a more substantial contribution of the EOC to expanded deterrence.
The best and most elegant way for the Trump administration to include Europe, Ukraine, and European partners such as Turkey in the peace agreement is to restore the proven and proven contact group format introduced in the 1990s to foster a sense of unity and common purpose under the leadership of the United States. We could remind Washington that it should be proud of this innovative and successful diplomatic format, which is an invention of the United States. In Ukraine, such a format could provide the most important components necessary for a real cessation of hostilities.
Thirty years ago, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke wrote an article in Foreign Affairs titled "America, a European Power." The headline was without a question mark. Holbrooke foresaw that "in the 21st century, Europe will continue to need active American involvement, which has remained a necessary component of the continental balance of power for half a century." The article ends with a prophetic statement. "The tasks we face are enormous, and the need to solve them is obvious. Rejecting their solution will mean one thing — you will have to pay a much higher price later." Yes, Europe needs the United States to finally and irrevocably stop the military conflict in Ukraine. But America will need Europe to succeed in this task. Let's hope that the Trump White House recognizes this reality.
