8个月前

How a second Trump presidency could tear Europe apart

www.politico.eu How a second Trump presidency could tear Europe apart

The former president’s return would cement a shift in the U.S. as a fact that can no longer be ignored.

The former president’s return would cement a shift in the U.S. as a fact that can no longer be ignored.

This is the moment most of Europe’s leaders hoped they would never see. The date is November 7, 2024, two days after Donald Trump edged out Joe Biden in the U.S. presidential election, and already the once-and-future president has announced he will force Ukraine to strike a peace deal with Russia and cede territories the Kremlin has claimed as its own.

Gathered in Budapest for a meeting of the European Political Community, the continent’s leaders stare out over the majestic Danube River with just one thing on their mind: How should they react?

Can they double down in the face of Trump’s opposition and finally give Kyiv whatever it takes, as a group of leaders clustered around Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron are arguing? Should they follow Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s lead and welcome Trump’s initiative to bring the conflict to an end? Wouldn’t it be better to work with Washington and help shape the deal, as the German and Italian delegations keep saying? And most importantly, how can the continent’s leaders keep the sharp turn in U.S. foreign policy from driving their countries apart?

Trump’s return to the White House is no sure thing, but the possibility is forcing Europe’s leaders to ponder scenarios like this, and grapple with the questions they entail. And as the U.S. election cycle cranks into a higher gear, officials across the continent are becoming increasingly candid about the implications of a second Trump presidency.

您正在查看单个线程.

29 留言

I feel like European leaders are panicking because they are realizing they have to actually lead on military and foreign policy rather than being given the binary choice to support the USA or do nothing. This isn't something they've done in generations.
- Nah, it's because Trump is batshit insane. People like predictability - everyone sane wants stability (the best among us want stability that progresses to a better state of the world).
  Can you say for certain that Trump wouldn't just raid Fort Knox and then flee the county? He doesn't seem to have any desire to actually be president outside of the legal immunity... we're sort of in a Ceaser situation here.
  
  Trump may have started it, but you also had issues with Ukrainian aid that forced Democrats to support the Republican Speaker of the House. The USA is starting to show cracks in wanting to stay involved in Europe. If that happens, the EU or other organization needs to be able to put together a plan. Right now, Europe can't.
  
  but you also had issues with Ukrainian aid that forced Democrats to support the Republican Speaker of the House.
  Yeah that's not what happened.
  Shit literally JUST HAPPENED, and you're already lying about it outright.
  
  It is usually good form to reply with a correction, if just to inform the others reading.
  
  OK, no problem.
  It was basically the other way around. The Republican Speaker of the House was forced to support the bill that the Democratic Senate had passed (and the President was ready to sign). Many hardliners in his (the Speaker's) party are not happy with this decision. There was already a split forming there (Speaker Johnson recently signed the thing to keep the Government running while others in his party wanted to hold it hostage like they always do), but this has made it worse.
  And to clarify, no the Speaker doesn't have the power alone, but he has a lot of control over his party, and he and the Party Whip will get the votes they need, if that's what they choose to do. So the buck stops with him when it comes to votes like this.
  So as I understand it, pretty much the opposite of what you said.
  Hopefully that cleared it up, I appreciate that you actually seem interested in finding out.
- It's not so much support the US or do nothing. The choice was support our interests, or trust that the US will sufficiently support them anyway. That trust is starting to break down, and Europe is learning just how complacent they've been.
  If Europe can legitimately become less dependent on US support, that's likely good for almost everyone in the long term. It's going to be really tough for European countries in the short term though. If they fail, it's amazing for the US, and really bad for Europe.
  
  I don't think it will be good for the USA if Europe fails.
  There has been a multi-decade push to try to get Europe as whole to take more ownership of nearby security issues as the USA is no longer in the hyperpower position it used to be. People live pointing out that the EU has a higher GDP than the USA, but European countries still rely on the USA for basic force projection.
  
  If Europe fails to reduce dependence on the US, they will functionally become a vassal state, which works well for the US.
  
  Not really. Europe is rather lacking in natural resources, has a lackluster military, and has a population with high economic demands.
- And we don't want to. We are a post-war society. Europe has fought any war that can be fought. We are done with it. Fuck war.
  And we got the Nobel peace prize for it.
  
  Well now we have to prepare for war so we can have peace.
  Europe is slow at the uptake, but the only power in the world that could theoretically beat us is the USA. I mean we'll wake up (hopefully), wipe putin and the kremlin, sternly look at china while we go independent from them, and then we'll probably go back to sleep once again somewhere in 2100.
  
  We are a post-war society.
  Uh, there is a war on European soil today.
  
  Yes 😢
- They can still support the US, as all of them have done for the last 79 years and are doing still now.
  
  It isn't whether Europe can or can't support the USA, it is that there is a very real possibility that the USA may not be there for Europe in the medium and long term.
  A lot of European foreign policy has been reactionary to American foreign policy because it was cheaper and politically easier just to have Americans do it or at least make the strategic decisions. We are now getting to a point where American leadership isn't assured.
  The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a lot scarier for Europe if it can't count on the USA to back NATO up.
  
  I upvoted your comment, because I like the underlying idea that Europe has been "protected" so far because they could not sustain themselves, which is absolutely true. But the previous order collapsing isn't necessarily bad.

29 留言