The Danger of Two Fronts

Political events often take on a life of their own. In Europe, a lot of attention is being focused on president Trump and the massive changes in policy towards Europe that he has undertaken. While these changes are very real both for the economy (tariffs) and security (US military support), the almost deafening voices expressing opinions on this are distracting from the real and immediate danger that is facing Europe: an aggressive Russia. Even under president Trump, the US is not the enemy: Russia is. True, Trump has a way of saying things that can get the blood pumping, and his trade tariffs certainly don’t help. Russia’s Putin can only rejoice at this unexpected distraction. During all of this, Europe needs to keep its eye on the ball of the real threat of Russia, while doing all to deal with trade and security issues regarding the US.

The recently disclosed Signal chat and its contents as revealed by Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, are indeed upsetting. The chat underscores the general disdain that members of the Trump administration apparently hold for Europe, its long-standing ally. However, although the context and tone of the discussion is surprising, the substance should not be. Since president Obama, the US has clearly stated its intent to focus away from Europe towards Asia. The recent announcement of Pete Hegseth, the new US secretary of defence, that the US is upgrading its military stance in Japan to deter China is a case in point. For years, the US has been urging its European NATO allies to increase investments in their own defence, and for many years, most allies did not respond. We do not know what officials in the Biden or Obama administrations quietly thought about Europe like we now do about the Trump administration. But it is reasonable to assume that they too were frustrated by the lack of action regarding investments in defence on the part of many European NATO allies.

Meanwhile, what we do know is that Russia is now into its fourth year of outright war against its neighbour Ukraine, and shows no signs of relenting. As Trump is trying to negotiate a peace deal, Russia is continuing its horrific onslaught against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure on a daily basis. Ukraine has already agreed to the US proposal for peace. Russia, on the other hand, is coming up with new “conditions” for peace as a way to continue its war. Russia’s reason for starting the war in 2022 was to annihilate the Ukrainian state and expand the Russian empire. The “danger” for Russia is a democratic, prosperous Ukraine that is a part of Europe. If “brother” slavs can live well, ordinary Russians may begin to demand change at home. From Putin’s personal point of view, a thriving and democratic Ukraine is a direct threat to his rule. Since 2022, nothing has changed in Russia’s objectives, and peace at this point would not help it to reach its goal. If Putin can obtain his goal in Ukraine, there is every reason to believe that he will continue to look for ways to continue to expand his empire. Unless he is stopped in Ukraine and deterred by massive military might, he will keep his troops on the march, regardless of the cost in Russian lives.

Europe clearly has a what is in effect a “front” with Russia, whether one wants to acknowledge this or not. This is the line of NATO countries starting with Norway and Finland in the north, going south to the Black sea, and continuing east across Turkey. This is not an offensive, but a defensive line where country after country has petitioned to join NATO because of the fear of Russian attack. Ukraine is currently caught in between, being neither a member of the EU nor of NATO. Although it is in the (slow) process of joining the EU, NATO membership has (for now) clearly been ruled out by Trump. It is in Europe’s interests to make sure that Ukraine survives as an independent country and becomes a part of the EU. This would send a strong signal to Moscow that might does not make right. Democracies are strong when they are many and united. Indeed, the wartime experience of Ukrainian soldiers today could serve all of Europe well in the future deterrence of Russia.

Given that it is impossible for Russia to successfully attack a united NATO with a combined military and economic power many times more than that of Russia, Putin is doing all that he can to weaken NATO, the transatlantic bond, and the EU from within. There are already two European leaders who are overtly sympathetic to Russia: Hungary’s Orban, and Slovakia’s Fico. Many are beginning to doubt on which side of the fence president Trump is sitting. This stems from glaring public statements, including at one point falsely blaming Ukraine for starting the war, and framing Zelensky as a dictator (as opposed to Putin being democratically elected?). It is only recently that Trump has for the first time expressed anger at Putin for not agreeing to his proposed peace plan.

After serving as Prime Minister for almost 5 years and having taken part in many EU council and NATO meetings, I can safely say that common foreign and security policy is less than straightforward. Many decisions really do boil down to the individual leader, who may be better or less informed on the subject at hand. In most countries, professional ministries or departments provide guidance to leaders, and often have meaningful influence. In the US, Trump and his de facto deputy Musk are in the process of dismantling or neutralising the various departments and encouraging many experienced professionals to leave their posts, including in the military. This, unfortunately, does leave a vacuum of qualified advice that in previous administrations would serve to temper the whims of the leader. Time will tell how far Trump will succeed in reshaping the government and if and when Congress will take its rightful role in balancing the executive branch of government. The courts are already weighing in with various decisions that are countering executive over-reach.

For Europe, the danger lies in getting caught up in a struggle with the US and reacting to it as an adversary even while Russia is waging war in its backyard. What makes this all the more difficult is that Trump is introducing trade tariffs against his allies, which politically necessitate a response. As stock market values fall and business and consumer sentiment turns sour, political relations between the US and Europe are bound to suffer. The US administration’s ongoing attempts to “acquire” Greenland (a NATO ally via Denmark) complicate these relations even more. What keeps Russia from attempting a further attack in Europe is a combination of being bogged down militarily in Ukraine, together with the fact of NATO unity until now. A Kremlin dream would be that the US and Europe actually turn one from the other. The challenge for Europe will be to negotiate on trade with the US, and react with measured counter-tariffs, while not allowing the dispute to spill beyond trade. Europe can begin to (re)build respect from the US administration by following through on its recent and impressive pledges to increase investments in its own defence. For Europe, the US is and remains a key ally in deterring Russia from expanding its war. By investing in defence, Europe can show the Americans that they take their responsibility seriously and can be a good security partner for the US and allow it to gradually shift military resources to the Pacific without jeopardising European security. NATO need not suffer.

Within Europe, there are many political parties that want to change European policy, especially towards Russia. These are the voices currently against supporting Ukraine in the name of “peace”. They would be willing to give up Ukraine and perhaps other countries as well for the sake of reopening the flow of Russian gas and money back into Europe. These same politicians also proclaim an affinity with Trump, whom they see as a “strongman” similar to Putin, just like they would like to be. What they fail to realise is that if they were to succeed in destabilising Europe and the transatlantic bond, they would be putting their own countries and their populations at risk of a much broader war with Russia. As Putin has shown in Ukraine, his soldiers and bombs do not differentiate Russian and Ukrainian speakers in their terrible onslaught. As Putin works to expand the empire, everyone in his path is fair game.

It is not an easy task, but it is in Europe’s interests not to allow the trade disputes with Trump to expand into general antagonism. Unfortunately, the US administration seems to be doing everything in its power to weaken the transatlantic relationship and trust. The US officials do not appear to grasp the importance and benefit to the US that this alliance has brought to the American people. However, it is pointless for Europeans to lament the facts. It is up to European leaders to rise above their emotions and do what is best for the European people: to strengthen their own defence, work as closely as possible with their American ally, and deal with trade issues separate from all else. The alternative would be far worse for Europe.