Europe unsure if US is still an ally
SINCE the end of World War II, America’s grand strategy was to ensure that no hostile power arose on either flank of Eurasia. To this end, the US initiated the Marshall Plan and helped rebuild ruined Europe. This, in turn, became an important factor in raising US prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s. It also shaped the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) alliance and provided men and material to ensure the security of Europe.
In the east, the US went further in the pursuit of its goal. It fought a war in Korea that cost it over 35,000 lives and another in Vietnam, where it lost over 58,000 soldiers. The US occupied Japan till 1952 and completely remade its society and government in its own image, and it still retains substantial forces in the country at over a dozen bases.
American President Donald Trump seems to be wanting to turn this policy inside out. He seems to want to make deals with the Eurasian powers the US targeted — Russia and China — and write off America’s erstwhile friends. His pursuit of territorial expansion with regard to Canada, Panama and Denmark looks like a “sphere of influence” policy where the US will be the dominant Western Hemisphere power, while Eurasia will be left to the tender mercies of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
His new posture is manifesting itself in his approach to the war in Ukraine, where he has adopted what can, at best, be termed as a “Russia-leaning neutrality”. This is apparent in the stark difference visible in a US draft resolution circulated at the United Nations to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. The draft has mourned the loss of life in the “Russia-Ukraine conflict” and sought “a swift end to the conflict, including by addressing its root causes”, while calling for a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. This is a rival resolution to the one that Ukraine and Europe have backed, which speaks of Russian aggression and the implementation of past resolutions demanding that the Russians end the war and withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognised territory.
Trump has adopted a hard approach towards Kyiv. After freezing out Volodymyr Zelenskyy from the first US talks with Russia, Trump falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war that has ravaged that nation and killed thousands of people. When Zelenskyy criticised him for living in a “disinformation bubble”, Trump lashed out, calling the Ukrainian President a “dictator”. He attacked Ukraine for tricking the US into spending $350 billion “to fight a war that couldn’t be won”. And he has demanded a deal through which the US would control half the mineral rights of Ukraine to repay the money that Washington has spent in supporting Kyiv. According to US News & World Report, the US has actually spent around $100 billion, while the Europeans have put in nearly $400 billion till now.
The Trump plan is based on delivering a systemic shock to Europe and Ukraine to destabilise, if not destroy, the older system where the US was a firm NATO ally and a key backer of Ukraine in its war with Russia. The second objective has been to freeze out Europe and embrace Russia as a partner in making peace in Ukraine, even while blaming it for causing the war. Earlier this month, Trump called Putin and talked to him about ending the war without consulting either Ukraine or its European allies.
As for China, things seem to be moving towards a major trade deal which would take up from where the Phase I trade deal between the US and China in the last year of his previous administration left off. His advisers such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have been pushing a new deal, while his new alter ego, Elon Musk, has extensive business interests in China.
Just how deep the shift against Europe is was manifested by the speech of US Vice-President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference last week. He said free speech and democracy were under attack in Europe, but not from Russia or China, but mainstream political parties that were attacking European right-wing parties like the Alternative for Germany (AfD). It is no coincidence that the Far Right in Europe is soft towards Putin.
The shift in Ukraine has huge implications for America’s relationship with NATO and EU. The big question the Europeans are asking themselves now is: Is the US still an ally? Has it actually become an adversary? An emergency summit of European leaders did not throw much light on the murky situation, and now plans are afoot for a second summit. Money for Ukraine is not the issue; the Europeans are spending a lot. Clearly, the first task is to show resolve to prevent Ukraine from being railroaded by the Americans. Then they must move towards an independent defence system. Incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has questioned whether NATO will survive in its present form and has spoken of establishing an independent European defence capability.
As for India, there are both opportunities and risks. For one thing, a world where the US, China and Russia have détente is a more realistic multipolar world that suits India. But it would be a world where each pole is for itself. India will not be able to rely on the US for geopolitical support against China, much less for a military partnership that was outlined by the recent Trump-Modi joint statement.
