The Trump presidency reminds the world, and Europeans in particular, of some obvious truths that are too often forgotten:
- Humanity remains subject to the rule of force: the strong only respect the strong, and they crush the weak.
- Nations never fight for principles without also having an interest in doing so; in geopolitics, altruism is just a form of disguised selfishness.
- Ideals are never the real driving force behind alliances; these are merely a reflection of the interests of nations.
- International law, unlike domestic law, is not controlled by a judicial system: no court can truly control and enforce the implementation of treaties.
- Any treaty or agreement is only valid as long as all the signatories have an interest in respecting it.
- Nations enforce their interests by displaying their strength, without necessarily needing to use it.
- Strength depends not only on the size of armies; it also depends on the credibility of the willingness to use them.
In accordance with these principles, the United States has only intervened in world affairs when it was also in its interest to do so. In particular, European democrats owe their victory in 1945 to a convergence of interests with the United States beginning in December 1941. Since then, and to this day, American foreign policy has always followed these same principles. And today, if they are bringing down the Venezuelan dictatorship, it is not out of love for democracy, nor even to fight drug trafficking or to appropriate oil reserves, but above all to defend the primacy of the dollar in global trade, which is threatened by the de-dollarization in which Venezuelan oil was participating. And if they no longer defend Ukraine, it is because they have decided that they have more to gain by making peace, and doing business, with Russia than by saving a European country where they do not find as many markets.
In this context, preserving democracy in Europe is no longer useful to them. Let’s repeat that so it’s clear: protecting Europe’s independence and its democratic political system is no longer in the United States’ interest.
Today, there is a new dimension: in the United States, what matters is no longer just the interests of the country, but also, and sometimes above all, those of the president and his clan: he will abandon Ukraine if it allows his family and allies to make a lot of money from the Russians; and all the agreements signed by his administration (and he did not even sign the one negotiated in Paris this week) will never be more than scraps of paper if they thwart the interests of his clan. Similarly, he will annex Greenland, not to achieve economic or military objectives (which he can satisfy in other ways), but to add to his name the glory of having added a fifty-first state to the Union (after Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union in 1959, under President Dwight Eisenhower, after having been protected territories for a long time). Similarly, the Trump clan will abandon the whole of Europe if it sees it only as an obstacle to its business dealings with dictators, while despising Europeans who bow down to its insults.
For Europeans give in to it in everything. To gain his support in establishing a lasting agreement to save Ukraine, they refrain from any trade reprisals, any digital sanctions, and any credible defense of Greenland’s integrity. This calculation is understandable: if Ukraine falls, the whole of Europe will then be threatened with a Russian invasion, without American support.
However, by acting in this way, for the reasons mentioned above, Europeans will not save Ukraine; and they will lose Greenland. Then they will lose themselves.
What can be done about this?
Hide and wait for a change of presidency in the United States? That would be illusory: even if the Trump clan leaves power one day, the damage would be irreparable.
Sever all relations with them abruptly? That is obviously impossible. The damage would be just as irreparable, and no European country is prepared to take on such a break, particularly in the military field.
So, without provoking them or antagonizing these former allies who were so valuable in the past, we must acknowledge the implicit death of NATO and rapidly equip ourselves with European means of sovereignty and deterrence.
Means of sovereignty would first involve reducing our dependence on the Americans in the conduct of our military operations, in terms of armaments and means of communication; and to do this, we would have to move quickly towards strengthening our armies and improving their coordination.
Means of deterrence would mean becoming as necessary to the Americans as they are to us. And to do that, we would need credible instruments of retaliation. These already exist, at least in embryonic form: we already manufacture in Europe some components, some machines, some technologies, and many services that the United States cannot do without. Many more would be needed.
We are very far from all this. The American presence is still too strong in our armies, our businesses, and our lifestyles for our leaders to admit that the Americans are indifferent to our future, or even hostile if our future gets in the way of their interests.
Once again, the worst is the most likely scenario. Even if it is not yet certain, if we are willing to face reality, in a few years’ time, Europe, a fearful adolescent, can still become a self-confident adult in control of its own destiny.
Image : The Wolf and the Lamb – engraving after Gustave Dore