How a possible Trump return might benefit Europe
PGC
With a hypothetical return of Donald Trump to the White House, questions arise over the future of U.S. foreign policy and defense strategy, particularly concerning America’s role as a global stabilizer. Trump’s first term left a lasting impact on U.S. alliances by emphasizing a transactional approach to military support and urging allies to take on greater defense responsibilities. Now, as Trump’s platform pivots toward "peace through strength," (see: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-foreign-policy-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V04.A7MT.Hwz3xuxvD5CY&smid=url-share for a take on such a future; alleged errors of Biden/Harris years) he criticizes the "weakness" he perceives in Biden’s defense strategy. A second Trump administration would likely favor a hard-nosed, scaled-down approach to global engagement, focusing America’s power more selectively on areas of immediate national interest, especially the Indo-Pacific, where China looms as the primary threat.
Trump’s message implies that the U.S., under his leadership, would project power but limit foreign entanglements. His approach would likely pull back from longstanding commitments that do not directly serve U.S. interests, including parts of Europe and the Middle East, with military resources centered on areas of high strategic importance. In Trump’s vision, this prioritization would deter threats more efficiently, consolidating U.S. power against adversaries like China without depleting resources on secondary engagements. Trump’s allies, such as Robert C. O’Brien and Elbridge Colby, argue that Biden’s approach has dissipated U.S. military strength in scattered conflicts, leaving the country vulnerable and unable to confront genuine threats with full force. The Trumpian platform criticizes the Biden administration’s global commitments as stretching resources thinly and creating a predictable stance, whereas an unpredictable deterrent—using limited but targeted power—would be more effective.
However, while a concentrated military focus on China might enhance U.S. readiness for a major confrontation, it risks new complications. An indefinite U.S. deployment in the Indo-Pacific would mirror past entanglements in the Middle East, where adversaries prolonged engagements to drain U.S. resources. China could adopt a similar strategy, waiting out U.S. forces while leveraging economic and diplomatic power in other regions. Trump’s approach also introduces a pressing question for Europe: If the U.S. deprioritizes European security, is Europe prepared to assume greater responsibility for its defense, countering Russian aggression and securing its interests independently?
In this context, Europe would need to balance pragmatic defense measures with a renewed vision for a unified and resilient future. On one hand, European defense experts like Franz-Stefan Gady argue that Europe must urgently confront the reality of deterrence and self-defense. According to Gady, Europe, especially Germany, has relied on U.S. protection while morally denouncing military engagement—a stance he describes as “parasitic pacifism.” For Europe to respond effectively to potential threats, Gady contends, it must develop a comprehensive defense strategy that combines deterrence with self-sufficiency. This requires European nations, particularly Germany, to make significant investments in their defense capabilities, improving logistical support, intelligence sharing, and technological integration. Germany, positioned as NATO’s logistical hub, would need to work closely with Poland and other regional partners to establish a robust deterrent structure. Strengthening cooperation with neighboring countries like Poland would be crucial, as Germany’s strategic location would make it both a staging ground for NATO and a primary target for potential adversaries in a conflict scenario. Although I don’t normally lean right, this is where I agree, given these scenarios. I’m not a pacifist when the democratic idea itself is under attack.
Gady’s perspective highlights Europe’s need to rethink its reliance on external protection and embrace a proactive defense strategy. By investing in modernized forces, cyber and intelligence networks, and next-generation defense technologies, Europe could mitigate the risks of a reduced U.S. presence while reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank. Such a shift would not only allow Europe to deter potential aggressors but also position it as a more equal partner to the U.S., fostering a more balanced transatlantic relationship based on shared responsibility rather than dependence.
On the other hand, Europe has an opportunity to adopt a visionary approach inspired by leaders like John F. Kennedy, who saw ambitious, transformative goals as acts of optimism that could unite societies and define their futures. Kennedy’s 1962 "Moonshot Speech" exemplified how a nation could rally around a shared objective, driven by a commitment to progress and exploration. In today’s landscape, Europe faces a similar chance to unify around visionary goals that both strengthen its internal cohesion and position it as a leader in addressing global challenges. Rather than accepting a passive role, Europe could seize this moment to assert itself on the world stage, becoming a beacon of democratic values and technological innovation. A Trump term would provide motivation for Europe to overcome the local petty differences between governments as consensus is easier to achieve facing existential threats. I admit that I’m painting a rosy picture but such threats would necessitate a more coherent Europe.
With climate change, digital transformation, and the rise of authoritarianism threatening the global order, Europe has the opportunity to implement more ambitious initiatives in sustainability, digital rights, and democratic governance. By committing to net-zero emissions and pioneering renewable energy technologies, Europe could not only combat climate change but also establish itself more as a provider of sustainable solutions globally. With the US in Trump navel gazing mode (the navel would be great again) and other powers looking solely at immediate costs and margins, perhaps European research could find its footing out of the recent decline. This would bolster Europe’s soft power, promoting a democratic model that counters the influence of authoritarian regimes.
Similarly, by setting ethical standards for artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and digital rights, Europe could present a democratic alternative to the authoritarian models of digital governance, reinforcing its commitment to human rights and personal autonomy. This vision would unify European nations around a positive, transformative agenda, galvanizing public support and creating a counterweight to the pessimism and isolationism shaping politics in both the U.S. and authoritarian states.
These two perspectives—a pragmatic defense strategy and a visionary societal commitment—are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they complement each other, forming a robust framework through which Europe can navigate an uncertain global landscape. As the U.S. potentially scales back its commitments, Europe’s need for a comprehensive defense strategy becomes even more critical. By bolstering its military readiness, Europe can secure its autonomy, making it less vulnerable to the influence of authoritarian states. This pragmatic approach aligns with Trump’s expectation that allies should shoulder more of their defense burden, potentially strengthening U.S.-European relations by fostering a partnership based on mutual capability rather than dependency.
At the same time, Europe’s adoption of Kennedy-style goals offers a counterbalance to the transactional and authoritarian tendencies shaping global politics. In embracing ambitious goals for technological advancement, environmental responsibility, and democratic integrity, Europe could redefine its role as a forward-thinking block and get out of gridlocks that plague it. This kind of visionary agenda would foster internal unity within the European Union, rallying citizens around shared objectives that transcend national boundaries and reflect a commitment to collective progress.
In a world increasingly influenced by authoritarianism, Europe’s ability to blend realism with idealism would appear more essential to preserving democratic values. The defense measures Gady advocates would empower Europe to stand independently, deterring aggressors and securing its place as a stable, reliable, democratic actor on the global stage. Meanwhile, a commitment to progressive goals in sustainability, technology, and governance could elevate Europe’s influence, proving that democratic societies can adapt and thrive in the face of existential challenges.
A second Trump presidency, with its emphasis on selective engagement and cost-cutting in foreign commitments, would likely reshape global dynamics, placing additional pressure on Europe to define its path. Yet, by embracing both a pragmatic defense policy and a visionary agenda, Europe could rise to this challenge, transforming itself into a bastion of democratic resilience while the US navel gazes itself into deporting migrants, undermining checks and balances, hating itself. In doing so, Europe would not only protect its interests but also offer the world an enduring model for democratic strength and innovation. As US isolationism and MAGA "aspirations" would abdicate the throne of "leader of the free world" in favor of "leader in navel gazing + isolationism", somebody would have to step up. And this just might be the kick in the butt Europe needs to quit the partisan national gridlock that has been plaguing it for the last decades. Of course, everything could fall apart here too with more right wing influence. But the geopolitical circumstance could frame isolationism as unpatriotic and also limit this damage in face of unifying existential threats.