A few days ago, Emmanuel Macron met with Donald Trump. After the meeting, Macron, with his usual self-confidence, seemed certain that he had headed off a US-Europe trade war: ‘“Come on, you cannot have a trade war with China and Europe at the same time. I hope I convinced him,” Macron told Fox News after the meeting.’ Today, Trump announced that he was imposing a 25% tariff on all goods imported from Europe.
This was only the latest in a fusillade of bombshells aimed at the Old Continent. Pete Hegseth told the Europeans that they were on their own to deal with Russia, since the US was now preoccupied with China. J. D. Vance told the Munich Security Conference that Russia really wasn’t the problem anyway, because Europe’s chief antagonist was “the enemy within,” by which he meant not the far right but rather the refusal of liberal mainstream parties to cooperate with the far right. Trump followed up by labeling Ukrainian President Zelensky a “dictator” and opening negotiations with Russia without European or Ukrainian participation. Finally, Trump announced, with his characteristic sublime indifference to the historical record, that the EU had been “formed to screw the US.”
And, oh yes, Trump also added that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, as if such membership were still meaningful now that Trump’s rampage has gutted the alliance and all but emptied it of meaning. Editorialists such as Martin Wolf have gone so far as to state that Trump has “declared war” on Europe. Incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz has noted that Europe must now face up to the challenge of defending itself. Ursula von der Leyen has proposed joint EU funding of armaments. No doubt this new European enthusiasm for military Keynesianism will be welcomed by, say, German automakers whose bottom lines will be hit by the Trump tariffs; beating luxury limousines into swords will offer one way out of the impending crisis.
But even if the forges keep running, the chill will remain in the air. Trump’s open hostility to what used to be “the Western alliance” consummates a divorce that has been a long time coming and leaves many wondering whether America is now best seen as a competitor, a nation gone rogue, or even … an enemy.
1 Comment
Back in the 1970’s, France’s nuclear deterrent had four components: sea-based, air force based, strategic missiles based in Provence and short-range Pluton missiles in certain army regiments equipped with so-called tactical weapons (i.e. not much more destructive than the Hiroshima bomb…). Our West German friends were rather worried about the latter which were not aimed at them as was well known but could only hit German territory…
Today’s nuclear deterrent has been scaled down to the first two components which are enough to more or less devastate a country such as, say, Russia or any other enemy country that would threaten French vital national interest (deterrence “tous azimut”). The latter has always remained undefined and is apparently not necessarily restricted to the national borders of France. Germany today appears to be discussing placing itself under the nuclear protection of France. However, it is self-evident that several issues stand in the way before something like that can happen:
1. there can be no question of shared decision-making,
2. any extension must to the whole of EU member countries who must agree, otherwise it would be an invitation to attack other EU members,
3. thus the “size” of the deterrent must be significantly increased so that it can be partly pre-positioned in several other EU member countries (Estonia would be an interesting destination…).
4. France’s finances cannot pay for this given the state there are in, Germany and the EU at large would have to finance this,
5. we are therefore likely talking decades. In the interim the US’s treason will leave Europe without a reliable, trusted defense. This is why many are calling 2035 a very dangerous coming time.