Why Donald Trump’s return is a disaster for Europe

Perhaps not, but this is the misguided opinion voiced in the Guardian on November 7. “There is nothing but bad news for Europe in Donald Trump’s US election victory. The only question is just how bad it will get. Europeans stand to suffer strategically, economically and politically from his “America first” policies, as well as from his unpredictability and transactional approach to global affairs. The undermining of Nato, the emboldening of illiberal nationalists everywhere, a transatlantic trade war, and a battle over European regulation of US social media platforms, AI and cryptocurrencies are just some of the major risks of a second Trump presidency.” (The Guardian, November 7, 2024).

The same wailing was heard during Trump’s first period as President, meaning that Europeans still do not realise that Trump then and now may have a point or two with his America first policies and its relation to European woes.

Wonder why Europe did not realise that, given that Trump had almost the same views in 2017. To show that this was indeed the case, take a look at an English translation of essay published in Danish on January 20, 2017. That’s right 2017, almost eight years ago. But then apparently not everyone got the message at the time, neither in the US nor in certain European countries. So today we may see several replays.

Here the essay from 2017:?

Trump may have a point when he trumps conventional thinking

January 20, 2017, https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/trump-may-have-a-point-when-he-trumps-conventionel-thinking

Consternation, rejection and Trump bashing

That was the general European reaction to Trump's many, partly contradictory statements in the interview he gave to Bild Zeitung and The Times.

"Schwachsinn" (stupid nonsense), " Wir müssen auf das Schlimmste gefasst sein" said the chairman of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee, Elmar Brok, commenting on Trump's statement that "the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade."

President Hollande was a little more diplomatic in his criticism of Trump: "Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will based upon its interests and values ... It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do"

In a similar way, Chancellor Merkel reacted: "Also, ich denke, wir Europ?er haben unser Schicksal selbst in der Hand." With economic strength and efficient decision-making structures, the EU can cope with the fight against terrorism, digitalization and other problems, Merkel argues. A new version of "Wir schaffen das"?

Now Europe must stand together was the keynote of many of the comments. "Dies ist jetzt die Stunde der Europ?er" was the warning from Elmar Brok, because if Europe does not succeed in standing together in foreign and security policy, a new world order will emerge under Russian President Putin and President Trump.

Much of the criticism from Europe has been characterized by what the Germans would call "überheblichkeit" (arrogance that is supremely condescending) in relation to Trump's statements.

This also applies to most media outlets, which have had an extremely critical view of Donald Trump. Trump bashing has been a popular activity, and it has also been a relatively easy matter to find cause for Trump bashing, from his boastful manner, lack of rhetorical skills, to hurried Twitter announcements and his other escapades.

One has stereotypically subscribed to what we might call common correct political opinions, in a version in which truth seems to be defined in a self-referential spiral of mutual affirmation that continues without the slightest thought ad absurdum.

On Friday, however, Donald Trump will enter as the next U.S. president, so instead of the media's parrot-like and unreflective Trump bashing, there is reason to see if there is actually some meaning in the madness.

Therefore, rather than simply repeating the almost identical criticism of Trump's view of the world, we will try to see if Trump's many, often contradictory, statements can still make sense and indicate the future direction of his presidency

Making sense of Trump's confusing statements

The interview with Trump touched on many topics, large and small, global on the one hand and personal little things on the other. Here we will try to focus on some of the overall themes as we have seen them:

America first

Partnership with Russia

NATO and US interests

Break-up in the EU, German dominance and Brexit

Fair trade or free trade

America first!

"Make America great again" was the message from Trump during the election campaign, and although it can be dismissed as a campaign slogan, it may also contain an important core of Trump's view of the world. Anything that serves the interests of the United States must be promoted and anything that in any way threatens these interests or diminishes the role of the United States in the world is problematic and must be rejected or fought.

However, Trump has not presented grand visions or long-term strategies. "For some observers, this suggests an untutored or incoherent approach to foreign policy, derived largely from news headlines and his experiences as a globetrotting businessman," but in "Le Monde Diplomatique" one can find a completely different assumption: "Donald Trump has a clear-eyed view of the world and America's place within in it — and in some respects his perceptions are far more attuned to world realities than those of well-regarded pundits and policymakers in Washington."

Therefore, one should not be seduced by Trump's lack of rhetorical skills and his incoherent speech, but rather see him as the grubby little boy who is the first to see that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

It can hardly be said that President Obama has had much success in his foreign policy. To a large extent in this area, he has been a weak president, weakening the United States in the face of more determined and unscrupulous players on the world stage. This applies in relation to Putin's Russia, it applies to relations with China and Syria's Assad.

Weak leaders in the United States and Europe, feeling in a kind of self-perceived and assertive sense that they at least had the right values, have largely stuck to complacent rhetoric with little consistency and little effect. They have ended up in a kind of insoluble put-in-cold storage-situation with Russia, have had immensely little influence in the Syrian conflict and apparently have no idea what to do with the refugee problem, with Africa, or all the other problems in the world for that matter.

Then comes the businessman from the outside, the man who does not follow the conventions, a man who, in his own immediate, and very undiplomatic way, names problems that are otherwise wrapped up in euphemisms.

We see it in statements about Obama's foreign policy problems. "Afghanistan is, is not going well. Nothing's going well — I guess we've been in Afghanistan almost 17 years — but you look at all of the places, now in all fairness, we haven't let our people do what they're supposed to do"

Or about the most important military priority, where Trump's answer is simply: "Isis."

Or Syria, where "we had a chance to do something when we had the line in the sand and it wasn't — nothing happened ... That was the only time — and now, it's sort of very late."

Le Monde notes: "The aim of US foreign policy in this environment is to advance America's interests above all else, and frustrate the designs of all those who seek advantage at its expense. In this competitive environment, where every government will be judged solely by what it can do to further America's interests or impede its progress, Trump will use every tool at his disposal to reward partners and punish opponents. Willing collaborators can expect state visits to the White House, favourable trade deals and exemption from human rights considerations; adversaries will face high import tariffs, diplomatic isolation and, in case of extreme provocation, military action."

Partnership with Russia

During the election campaign, Trump said "When you think about it, wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?" ... "Wouldn't it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?" (Reuters).

One could argue that this is what Kerry and Obama somewhat half-heartedly tried, but where the attempt ended up creating a much greater distance from Putin. On the whole, it is undeniable that relations with Russia have deteriorated in recent years, both in terms of relations with the United States and relations with the European Union. Putin, on the other hand, has been able to exploit the situation, especially during Obama's last "lame duck" period, when Putin pushed through his Syria policy. The Crimean annexation and the Donbass conflict are apparently frozen on the surface, but under the ice hot local conflicts continue.

The poor relationship with Russia is reflected in the Gallup poll in the United States, where Russia and North Korea take turns being the main enemy.

The result is remarkable if we compare with previous measurements, but the change in relations with Russia is of course related to the Crimean invasion and the Donbass unrest.

Now we have a situation where people seem to fear what Russia might do to the Baltic countries. With a quiet mutual escalation as a result, in which Russia complains that NATO is moving closer, but deploys Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave, while the United States and Europe send smaller military forces to Poland and the Baltic countries.

Perhaps the West's reaction to Russia has been downright foolish and at the same time so weak that Russia has been able to take advantage of the situation to cunningly occupy Crimea. Now they are faced with the risk of increased confrontations.

The alternative must be to seek a good relationship with Russia from a power base, in a something-for-something policy. And isn't that what Trump is proposing? Firstly, by seeing Russia not as a main enemy to be isolated, but as a possible partner. Like negotiations between two large competing companies competing for markets and market shares.

Here's what Trump answered, when asked if he supports European sanctions against Russia: "Well, I think you know — people have to get together and people have to do what they have to do in terms of being fair. ENDORSEMENT? They have sanctions on Russia — let's see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that's part of it. But you do have sanctions and Russia's hurting very badly right now because of sanctions, but I think something can happen that a lot of people are going to benefit."

Trump claims in three consecutive tweets from early January that only stupid people or fools would argue that a good relationship with Russia would be stupid:

"Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We ... have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now and... both countries will, perhaps, work together to solve some of the many great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD!" January 7, 2017

Unlike other Western decision-makers, Trump sees opportunities for a partnership with Russia, rather than mutual escalation. Trump is not bound by other politicians' quick assertion that Russia after the Crimean annexation and Syria intervention is the main enemy. Putin has similarly expressed a desire to normalize relations with the United States "and pursue constructive cooperation on the widest possible range of issues."

"If anything is likely to change during the early days of a Trump administration, it is the US's relations with Russia. Trump spoke on several occasions of his admiration for Vladimir Putin, offering to meet him in an effort to improve bilateral relations."

Putin has also stayed on the mat while he waits for Trump. "But it would be a mistake for Putin to assume that any honeymoon in Russian-American relations will prove lasting. As Trump has made very clear, his primary interest is to promote US interests above all else, and this will not allow for any arrangement that could be interpreted as surrendering America's dominant position on the global chessboard. We cannot foresee at what point assertive Russian action in eastern Europe might test that stance, but Trump will not allow the US to be branded as indecisive or weak-willed in any such confrontation."

Now it becomes so speculative. What can a deal with Russia consist of? What could Russia, for example, give in return for the lifting of sanctions and the acceptance of the annexation of Crimea and some referendum in Donbass (a la the referendum in Schleswig after the First World War) in which the people vote on affiliation and status? A cooperation to fight Isis or Daesh and otherwise terror is certainly not enough. More is needed in a "grand bargain" with Russia, nuclear disarmament, a stop to further Russian expansion, cooperation on Middle East problems, advantageous trade agreements, a common front against Chinese expansion. In the long term, it is probably essential that Russia, Europe and the United States must have a minimum of cooperation in order not to be too weak in the face of an increasingly self-confident China, to ensure that disputes in the Middle East do not spiral out of control, resulting in new refugee flows and, finally, to contribute to stability in Africa.

NATO and US interests

When asked if Trump can understand why Eastern Europe fears Putin and Russia, he answers somewhat incoherently by criticizing NATO.

"Sure. Oh sure, I know that. I mean, I understand what's going on, I said a long time ago — that NATO had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was, you know, designed many, many years ago. Number two — the countries aren't paying what they're supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete. It's obsolete because it wasn't taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days."

It is a criticism that leads German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to describe "astonishment" and "agitation." After a meeting with the NATO Secretary General ?he expresses that Trump's announcement was received with concern. Steinmeier also believed that Trump's statements contradicted what Defense Secretary-designate James Mattis had said during his "confirmation hearing."

What, then, is behind Trump's criticism of NATO for being outdated? Here we must remember what he had previously said. NATO is "obsolete because it wasn't taking care of terror." and then "NATO designed many, many years ago."

Western politicians have before Trump mentioned that NATO should cooperate with Russia, and there have also been questions about NATO's legitimacy after the end of the Cold War.

A fundamental question is therefore whether Trump is not to some extent right, that NATO is obsolete. NATO is not an equal partnership, despite the musketeer oath. NATO is a cheap insurance for Europeans, paid for by the United States. For a very long time, Europe has failed to ensure its own effective defence (with a few exceptions such as the UK).? Instead, Europe has been hiding under the protective wings of the US-American eagle. Therefore, it is basically only the United States that decides in NATO.?

It may seem absurd that a European Union of 500 million inhabitants should leave it to the United States, with some 320 million, to intervene alone. This was true of the Balkan conflict, it is largely true of current terrorism and it is still true when you feel threatened by Russia. Some might argue that NATO partners certainly helped the United States, when NATO's musketeer oath was triggered after the 2001 World Trade Center attack. In reality, it was the mouse helping the elephant.

We have to note that when the relationship between the NATO partners is extremely unequal, it is not inconceivable to imagine that the United States would demand that Europe (or the EU) should build its own effective defence.

In the "Bild" and "The Times" interview, Trump also comes back with another criticism: "the countries aren't paying their fair share so we're supposed to protect countries, but a lot of these countries aren't paying what they're supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. In the best Trump style, he then adds, "With that being said, NATO is very important to me."

?And Trump is certainly right. Here is the share of GDP that each country pays.

The inequality is even greater when we look at what you contribute in absolute amounts. NATO's defense spending in 2016 totaled USD 918,298 million, of which the United States accounted for USD 664,058 million. Germany contributed only $40,663 million. The UK, on the other hand, with 60,347 million USD.

Trump may be quite right in his criticism of NATO as outdated and that the partners get far too cheap insurance.

Perhaps it is in the awareness that this discrepancy between the obligations and services of Europe and the United States cannot last, and probably also a fear, what Trump might come up with, that Europeans have begun to talk about a European defence and a European army. However, it is not imminent, for the time being they are content with various proposals for better coordination of, among other things, missions outside Europe:

"EU states in November agreed to create a new military headquarters inside Federica Mogherini's foreign service and to make joint "battlegroups" ready for action. The European Commission also unveiled proposals for a joint military research and procurement fund."

In an article in the EU Observer, a title from Magritte's picture of a pipe is used to characterize the EU's plans: "Ceci n'est pas une EU army." No, it’s just the idea of it.

The break-up of the EU and German dominance

From Trump's answer to the question of how he sees the future of the EU and whether he expects more countries to leave the union, one gets the feeling that it is not exactly a topic he is particularly interested in. "I think it’s tough. I spoke to the head of the European Union, very fine gentleman called me up." The gentleman in question turned out to be Jean-Claude Juncker.

For Trump, it doesn't matter if there is a strong union or a collection of strong nation-states: "Personally, I don't think it matters much for the United States. I never thought it mattered. Look, the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade, OK? So, I don't really care whether it's separate or together, to me it doesn't matter."

It is clearly a view marked by his experience as a businessman, as he embarks on a slightly rambling review of his own experience of business in Europe. However, he is not entirely consistent, because in other parts of the interview he quite clearly supports the idea of a state that one can identify with. A national state with clear borders, which also fits better with his own "USA first" venture. "People, countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity but, I do believe this, if they hadn't been forced to take in all of the refugees, so many, with all the problems that it, you know, entails, I think that you wouldn't have a Brexit. It probably could have worked out but, this was the final straw, this was the final straw that broke the camel's back."

Now, it's not that the UK was exactly flooded by the refugee wave in 2015, so here he mixes things up. Still, he may still be right. As we have previously tried to demonstrate in the blog post "Merkel, last one standing? – you must be mad!" Chancellor Merkel's insistence on free movement of labour in the EU made it difficult for Cameron to argue that he had achieved anything in his negotiations with the EU. Her refugee policy has not exactly been attractive to many Britons either. This may have meant that the "Leave" movement just gained the extra votes that led to Brexit.

If that is the case, Trump's statement makes sense after all.

Which brings us to his attack on Merkel's refugee policy.? "I felt she was a great, great leader. I think she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know taking all of the people from wherever they come from. And nobody even knows where they come from." He sees Merkel as a great leader who made a catastrophic mistake when she opened the borders back in the fall of 2015.

Today, it is probably a view that many share. Merkel made a mistake. A mistake Trump does not want to make, and it is probably in that light that one should see his comments about better control of Muslim immigration to the United States.? "We don't want people coming in from Syria who we don't know who they are. You know there's no way of vetting these people. I don't want to do what Germany did."

This will probably also be an opinion shared by most decision-makers in Europe today, and Merkel has also begun to realize that it was a problematic decision she made. So even though Trump is somewhat incoherent in his arguments, you can probably say that he is hitting the nail on the head here.

Trump also sees problems related to Germany's influence in Europe.

"Cause you look at the UK and you look at the European Union and its Germany. Basically, a vehicle for Germany. That's why I thought the UK was so smart in getting out."

In the blog post "The spectre of German dominance in the EU" we found arguments for the same view, that Europe had become "a vehicle for Germany". The Financial Times writes: "... power within Europe has shifted sharply towards Berlin. Mrs. Merkel is widely seen as the continent's most important politician. In Beijing or Washington, DC, the question: "Where is Europe going?" has become synonymous with: "What do the Germans want?" ... Bureaucrats in Brussels talk ruefully about Berlin becoming the capital of Europe. "When the German position changes on an issue, the kaleidoscope shifts as other countries line up behind them," says one official. "That's unprecedented in the history of the EU." (FT)

Quoting the New Statesman: "A spectre is once again haunting Europe – the spectre of German power."

Free trade or fair trade

Trump's many announcements about unfavourable or downright stupid trade agreements and his Twitter threats against companies that move jobs to low-wage countries have caused some nervousness across large parts of the world and have even had immediate effects on the decisions of large companies.

Many comments have been that Trump's ideas, because plans can hardly call them, are expressions of an unwise protectionism that harms free trade, leads to trade wars, and will ultimately cause everyone to experience reduced economic development, which will also have negative effects on the workers whose jobs Trump claims to secure.

In the interview, Trump's criticism reads: "The problem is the US is always taken advantage of — we have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficits with China — we have $805 billion in trade deficits with the world — ya almost say, who's making these deals when you're losing that kind of money, right — we actually have almost $800 billion — almost $800 billion in trade deficits with the world."

Trump may be exaggerating a bit and using, as far as it can be estimated. In 2015 when the U.S. deficit on "U.S. trade in goods with World, Seasonally Adjusted" was $745.660 billion. For 2016, it appears to have been reduced to $666.117 billion. Still a huge deficit!

Among those who, according to Trump, exploit the United States the most are China and Germany. The United States had a deficit against China in 2015 of just over USD 367 billion and against Germany of just under USD 75 billion. By 2016, however, these deficits had been reduced.

Trump wants a better balance in trade. He is not alone in this. The United States has previously sought to pressure both China and Germany, for example, to do something to reduce the imbalance. In 2016, the United States decided to put China, Germany and three other countries on a watchlist, meaning that "the US Treasury Department [will] increase its monitoring of trade partners with excessive budget and trade surpluses, which Washington suspects are behaving unfairly to support their economies." ...

Three criteria help define the lack of fairness: "maintaining a significant trade surplus with the United States, maintaining a current account surplus larger than 3.0 percent of the country's GDP, and repeated intervention in the foreign exchange market to keep its currency from appreciating."

The purpose of the list is to draw attention to the problem, to try to persuade the countries concerned to do something to reduce the imbalance. If not, "the countries could face a greater threat of sanctions in the future."

Well, and that's probably exactly what can be expected with Trump's announcements.

With "America first" and "fair trade" ideas and Twitter threats, Trump is also seeking to preserve jobs in the United States. In the interview, Trump once again warns car factories against moving parts of their production to Mexico.

"I would tell them, don't waste their time and money — unless they want to sell to other countries, that's fine — if they want to open in Mexico, I love Mexico, I like the president, I like everybody — but I would tell BMW if they think they're

going to build a plant in Mexico and sell cars into the US without a 35 per cent tax,

it's not going to happen, it's not going to happen."

With BMW, Trump may not choose the best example. Because the German CAR institute can actually demonstrate that BMW only sells 1% more cars in the US than they produce there. On the other hand, it looks quite different for VW, which otherwise has plenty of problems, because VW sells 626% more cars in the US than it produces there.

Trump's notions of a better trade balance and securing U.S. jobs have been accompanied by significant verbal threats and tweets that have already had an effect on a number of companies' decisions not to move production from the U.S. to Mexico.

?In the "World Economic Forum," which is being held in Davos these days, the message has also been heard and there are indications that it is being taken seriously. Reuters reported here on January 19: "Davos CEOs 'go local' on supply chain in Trump era" and continues: "Business leaders in Davos, traditionally the high priests of globalization, are talking up the benefits of local production this week to shield themselves from criticism from incoming U.S. President Donald Trump."

However, many media outlets have also made a point of reporting Xi Jinping's speech in Davos, because the Chinese leader's speech actually contained a defence of globalization and a more or less direct warning about the danger of protectionism under a future President Trump.

Perhaps it should have been noted instead that China, which has pursued a protectionist policy of first, is now agitating for free trade, while the United States, which has been in favour of free trade, is now seen as heading towards protectionism.

Perhaps Trump's threats have affected China, because Xi Jinping also promised that China would become more open to outside investment: "We will expand market access for foreign investors, build high-standard pilot free trade zones, strengthen protection of property rights, and level the playing field to make China's market more transparent and better regulated"

Xi Jinping also said that the exchange rate of the Chinese Renminbi (RMB) would not destabilize the world economy: "China has no intention to boost its trade competitiveness by devaluing the RMB, still less will it launch a currency war."

Perhaps these parts of Xi Jinping's speech should be seen as an admission that China has so far acted quite differently.

He has got a point or two, hasn't he?

Don't we have to conclude that Trump, despite his difficulty in expressing his ideas in a coherent and diplomatic manner in interviews and tweets, "has got a point or two"? He touches on a number of important problems that decision-makers in the United States and Europe have neither been particularly willing to acknowledge nor have been able to solve.

Now, despite the almost allergic reactions of many politicians, various think tank experts and the increasingly breathless (or is it spiritless) media's almost allergic reactions to his ideas and not least his way of expressing them, Trump has burst various boils.

Whether Trump and his new team will be able to find solutions to the problems remains to be seen. What can be left in doubt, however, is that his announcements have had effects even before he takes office as president.?

BTW: ?Trump and Trumping have several meanings. Here we have thought about the meaning of trump we find in "Oxford Learners Dictionaries":

"Trump something (with something) (in some card games) to play a trump card that beats somebody else's card,"

"Trump something/somebody to beat something that somebody says or does by saying or doing something even better"

Others might think that an old French meaning of "trumper" would be more appropriate: "Properly to play the horn, alluding to quacks and mountebanks, who attracted the public by blowing a horn, and then cheated them into buying; To cheat."

?