Trump or no Trump, Europe’s relationship with the US will never recover | Nathalie Tocci

IS Temporary or structural transatlantic break? Is Donald Trump the cause of the Rift, or is the American president just a symptom of underlying trends? Optimists cling to hope that the stability we lost may be restored after the Trump. After spending the last days in Washington, I doubt it.

Even in recent history, things were not so bad for the transatlantic relationship. Current tensions mean that the first Trump administration looks like a walk in the park for Europeans. It is one thing to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear agreement, which Trump did during his first mandate. This is another to bomb Iran and give Israel the green light for his war against the regime.

It is one thing to be threatened with prices and make empty promises, as made by Jean-Claude Juncker, to buy more American goods. This is another thing to swallow 15% of American prices, leaving a Ursula von of Leyen with a foul look

Regarding security cooperation, Trump during his first mandate at least sent anti -tank javelin missiles to Ukraine; At best, it will allow European governments to buy American weapons for Kyiv. Meanwhile, he was taken a look by Vladimir Putin while the Russian dictator is delighted with the red carpet in Anchorage, Alaska.

Optimism can become a form of faith – and some always cling to belief, despite all the evidence, that the good old transatlantic days will be back.

This scenario is delusional. Even if Trump was to disappear, it is difficult to see the transatlantic relationship return to this sense of shared kinship that has characterized it in recent decades. The maximum that we can hope, as a Washington observer framed it for me, is to become a separate couple living temporarily under the same roof for the good of children, then to separate amicably.

When Joe Biden was elected, I suspected that he would be the last truly Atlanticist’s American chief, no matter who came afterwards. I remember distinctly when Biden woke up the crowd of transatlantic lovers at the Munich security conference in 2021, announcing that “America is back”. A small voice in my head added: “Probably for the last time.” Security, demographic, societal and economic forces in the United States and around the world have stressed Biden’s commitment. The transatlantic relationship can no longer be supposed to be based on shared values ​​and identities.

Europeans understand it intellectually, but they find it difficult to accept reality emotionally. This explains the tendency to lie down and avoid rushing Trump’s feathers, while waiting for time in the hope that the past can be restored by magic.

This attitude is dangerous because the alternative results seem much more likely – two in particular. They are both based on the deeper and more structural transatlantic drift than simply the presence of Trump himself. Whether we find ourselves closer to the first or second scenario depends on how Trump acts, but also on the reaction of Europe.

The former would see Europe and the United States attack when their interests, as ephemeral, converge. This would reduce the relationship to convenience transactions, without any of the emotional connections or long -term commitments which he has been enjoying for decades, but at least he would not be marked by enmity and feelings lasts.

If Europe is at war and the United States can earn money by selling it weapons, it will be happy to do so. But that will not prevent Washington from achieving a bilateral agreement with Moscow on the head of Ukrainians and Europeans. Accepting this rather sordid reality would mean that Europe, just like Russia, China or India, would cynically seek to extract as many gains as possible from the United States, aware that it is the name of the game for all. Europeans would continue to buy American weapons for a certain time, but use this time to develop the continent’s strategic autonomy and invest in the defense industry of Ukraine.

They would accept Trump’s prices in the short term, but strengthen the EU negotiation hand by increasing the scope, depth and pace of trade with others, Latin American countries from Mercosur block to India and complete and progressive transpacific partnership (CPTPP). In this scenario, Europe should also continue the proposal to build an alternative international trade system for the World Trade Organization, without the United States. It is not an ideal result for Europe, but with whom we could live.

However, there is another scenario, which is much more worrying for Europe. It is a world of empires in which the United States, Russia, China and perhaps India one day, each has its sphere of interest. The empires could end up competing, but they could also overlap, at least part of the time. They would do it on the basis of ephemeral transactions, rather than shared rules and laws. Trump’s instincts bow in this direction. Seeing Europe as a colony, he would prefer to face it by extortion as transactionalism.

Other potential empires can have different ideas about the future. The Chinese President, Xi Jinping, Love-in with Putin and Narendra Modi in Tianjin points in a more conflicting direction. Meanwhile, Trump’s myopic trade war has seriously established an American partnership meticulously designed with India, pushing Delhi into the knees of Beijing. A world of empires would be the worst possible result for Europe, taken between the imperial ambitions of Russia and the United States, China waiting behind the scenes.

Europe’s reactions to these emerging realities more likely make the chance of this dark result. European leaders have spent the last six months to manage, have fun and conceded to Trump. A small dose of diplomatic flattery is a necessity, of course, and reflects relative negotiation powers. But we really don’t need to pose for pathetic boost photos, send embarrassing text messages before NATO’s summits or offer golden gifts and royal invitations.

All of this self-humiliation makes many European citizens cringe. It is useless, for most of Trump’s inconsistent smiles; Worse, it is counterproductive, because it demonstrates that Europe can indeed be colonized and accepts the “survival of the most fit” as the path to follow. Europeans must really accept that the past has unfortunately passed. It is only then that they can avoid a future that will see them violently pushed into the food chain.