Is Europe ready for the US election results?

Earlier this year we emphasized the need – and growing urgency – for Europe to improve its defense capabilities and create a degree of independence from the United States. It is unclear how much progress NATO, and European member states in particular, have made. While Donald Trump’s victory can be expected to lead to a more radical shift in Washington’s efforts away from European defense, even the Biden-Harris administration has prioritized reprioritizing the Middle East and “pivoting” toward Asia.

European states appear to be reprioritizing their collective security and capabilities, especially as they face multiple threats and an uncertain future with their American partner. The alliance’s choice of a new secretary-general—Mark Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister known for his pragmatic, consensus-oriented leadership—suggests that members were looking for a leader who would not only staunchly support Ukraine but also bolster its defenses in the face of an emboldened Russia. In summer NATO also came to the conclusion it is the largest military exercise since the Cold War, involving more than 90,000 troops practicing rapid deployment across the Atlantic and Europe. TO NATO Washington summit in July, member countries committed to providing long-term support to Ukraine and adopted numerous policies and strategies on topical issues. It is noteworthy that the alliance has updated its Policy guidelines for Counterterrorism and NATO leaders also approved revised AI strategy accelerate the responsible use of AI within the alliance. NATO also announced in August it works to introduce new and revolutionary technologies and establish principles for responsible use.

These recent initiatives are in response to some of the most serious challenges facing the alliance: Russian aggression and hybrid activities, the spread of cyber threats from foreign interference to hacking, the rise of violent extremism and terrorism, including far-right and Salafi jihadism, and the role of new technologies in intensifying and exacerbating many of these problems. However, such progress may not be enough to address an uncertain future partnership with the White House, especially given the potential of a Russian-sympathetic administration, protracted conflict in the Middle East, or changing dynamics on the continent itself, such as the rise of far-right parties, many of which take pro-Russian positions. and seek to change security priorities.

The concept of “Trump-proofing” the alliance has been discussed before, including at the Washington summit in July, where leaders discussed ways to protect the alliance and the international security order from potential disruptions caused by a change in administration. However, in reality there is little that can be done to ensure the viability of the alliance through preemptive action. Some NATO allies are turning to people close to the former president to reduce the risk. Others are pushing for the creation of a NATO bank that would support defense spending and guarantee collective security. These efforts will mean little without future US support for the transatlantic project. Moreover, the very concept of “defending Trump” can be considered anti-democratic and reinforces the skepticism and distrust of international institutions that is increasingly common among the Western electorate.

While examining the implications for European security strategy and the future of the Alliance under each presidential candidate is important, it is clear that US priorities will increasingly shift back toward the Middle East as the conflict between Israel and Hamas continues and expands, regardless of the election results. Resources could also be redirected toward international counterterrorism efforts along with strategic competition priorities. FBI Director Christopher Wray highlighted earlier this year, an unprecedented number of simultaneous threats to the United States, including terrorism across the ideological spectrum, foreign election interference, espionage and others. Additionally, while the much-discussed US pivot to the Indo-Pacific has yet to fully materialize, it would be shortsighted to ignore the potential for increased US engagement in the region, especially given strengthening the alliance between hostile authoritarian regimesincluding Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. Despite NATO’s small victories in recent months, Europe should not be naive about its future security and should reconsider its over-dependence on the United States.

The Harris administration will likely ensure continuity with its predecessor in its policies towards NATO and Europe. While Harris may be less prominent in Cold War security politics, she has openly pledged to continue to support Ukraine against Russian aggression and build international alliances to protect U.S. interests from authoritarian regimes. During her speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, she clearly stated her administration would support NATO allies and Ukraine if she became president, underscoring that commitment.

That leaders are trying to “Trump-proof” NATO is a testament to the lessons learned during the former president’s tenure. Trump has often called the alliance obsolete and suggested that U.S. commitment to NATO’s mutual defense provisions would depend on individual member states meeting their financial obligations. However, the former administration was bark and no bite: the US did not reduce its military presence in Europe, while Trump engaged in diplomatic interactions with NATO leaders, albeit with a more transactional and financial focus. His presidency, when viewed from the perspective of European defense spending, was in some respects a relative success, apparently increase in investment Europeans in their own defense.

WITH a picture emerges As for what a potential second Trump administration’s NATO policy would look like, all signs point to the former president remaining skeptical of NATO and pursuing an increasingly transactional policy towards the continent. Perhaps this could be a positive development for accelerating European strategic autonomy if it were not coupled with Trump’s penchant for on the side of Russia. Trump is considering reduction on intelligence sharing with European NATO member states. Without the full weight of the US intelligence apparatus, Europe’s awareness of the situation in Russia – and its ability to counter ever-increasing Russian aggression and interference on European soil – will inevitably decline sharply. Moreover, Trump said he could decide conflict between Ukraine and Russia in one day, implying a settlement, and not a complete restoration of the borders of Ukraine. At a February rally in South Carolina Trump said he would call on Russia to do “whatever they want” with any NATO member country that does not comply with defense spending guidelines. Former President Trump also conversations allegedly continued with President Vladimir Putin after he left office, including one conversation in which Trump discouraged American military aid to Ukraine, according to journalist Bob Woodward. If this is true, it combines with Trump’s public statements about Russia and European alliances to paint a bleak picture for NATO’s future. While it appears that the United States will not withdraw from the Alliance, it has the potential to become a quid pro quo organization seriously tainted by the perceived sympathy for Russia on the part of its chief benefactor.

The outcome of the US presidential election will not only affect NATO and European defense more broadly, but will also serve to unify and embolden the forces currently operating on the continent itself. Height far-right populist parties in Europe, which are often both Eurosceptic and pro-Russian, has led to notable electoral successes in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, France and other countries. These leaders represent a growing faction in the European Parliament, particularly among Central European populists, who favor less support for Ukraine and closer alignment with Russian interests. Trump’s presidency could not only strengthen these groups and vice versa, at the national and EU level, but also to weaken the Alliance and other security institutions, especially in the face of an emboldened Russia.

Although Russia is largely successful influence As has already been demonstrated, the growing convergence of far-right and far-left populist forces on the continent means that the threat to European security does not clearly cross ideological lines, as seen in the joint protests in Europe. Czech Republic. Leftist, pro-Russian Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico—who promised earlier this month he “will never agree to Ukraine joining NATO” is also a good example. As these parties continue to profit from the war in Ukraine, energy prices and the cost of living crisis, as well as the institutional grievances of some in the European electorate, the Trump administration could potentially strengthen the positions of these parties and significantly European shift security priorities, weakening the continent’s ability to defend itself against foreign interference and aggression.

The impact of US leadership on European security is much more nuanced than a simple good-bad dichotomy. While it is clear that Trump’s pro-Russian leanings will cause significant damage to the Alliance, European security cannot be tied to the health of NATO, no matter who is in charge across the Atlantic. The United States’ eyes are now once again set on the Middle East, and with the war showing no signs of abating and a ceasefire seemingly elusive, expecting the Harris administration to fully protect the security and future of Europe is naive at best. As Europe’s growing populist forces demonstrate, failure to strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy and defense capabilities will likely weaken its overall security, no matter who occupies the White House. German newspaper Di Welt recently reviewed NATO’s updated military plans and discovered significant increase in requirements deployed to Member States from 2022. In addition to calling for more troops ready to fight against Russia, NATO military leaders are calling for a rapid increase in air and missile defense capabilities. Game time is over; it is time to view NATO as an addition to, rather than as the core of, a robust European security apparatus.