The Trump government’s bald announcements signalling imperial realignment have left European leaders scrambling in confusion, argues Chris Bambery

There is a particular group of Europeans who are in danger of a coronary attack; our political class. They have just suffered the greatest shocks in their lives.

The speech delivered by US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group last week was remarkable. It went far beyond what Donald Trump had said following his phone call with Russian president, Vladimir Putin.

First, he told the European leaders that the US was recognising that Nato membership for Ukraine was off table. Secondly, Russia was keeping conquered territory (whether the US is prepared to accept Ukraine’s loss of all four Russian-controlled oblasts is unclear): ‘… we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering… the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.’

European leaders must have been left reeling but worse was to come for them. Any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops, Hegseth announced. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-Nato mission. And they should not covered under Article 5 of the Nato treaty. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact. ‘To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.’

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states: ‘Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.’ What Hegseth was saying was not just that there would be no US boots on Ukrainian ground but if European troops ventured there, the US would not back them up in event of any clash with Russia.

Next was this piece of blackmail: ‘Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO. As part of this Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine … This means:  Donating more ammunition and equipment. Leveraging comparative advantages.  Expanding your defense industrial base. And importantly, leveling with your citizens about the threat facing Europe. Part of this is speaking frankly with your people about how this threat can only be met by spending more on defense. 2% is not enough; President Trump has called for 5%, and I agree.’

The ailing economies of Europe are being told they must massively hike up military spending. Who will bear the cost? The answer is obvious: the hard-pressed citizens of each state.

Pivot to the Pacific

Finally, Hesgith made clear the US strategic priority: ‘We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing trade-offs to ensure deterrence does not fail.’

For Trump, Ukraine is a sideshow, so he wants to drop it and pivot east. He would likely wish to do the same regarding the Middle East but that is not so easy.

As I write, European leaders are meeting to discuss what to do regarding Ukraine. Macron of France has called for a European army. Starmer says he is ‘ready and willing’ to put UK troops on the ground in Ukraine. But only after a ceasefire. The idea that European states might intervene to prolong a war Ukraine has lost is ludicrous. First, Ukraine has run out of troops and has been retreating west for months as the Russian army grinds forward, Secondly, zero plus zero equals zero. Germany, France, Britain and all the other European states don’t have the troops and the weaponry to fight Russia.

In World War II, the USA and Britain fought together against Germany (not so against Japan) but Washington also set out to strip away the British empire and the protected trade zone involving countries which used sterling. They did just that in 1945. Washington has used the war in Ukraine in much the same way relative to Germany and the European Union.

At the close of 2022 in article titled ‘2022 – The Year Europe Lost Control,’ I argued: ‘The United States has effectively neutered Germany as an independent power and as the dominant force in the EU.’ Germany had to join sanctions against Russia and China, stop using cheap Russian energy, close down its export market in China and grin and bear it when its allies blew up the Nord Stream pipe line under the Baltic. This has devastated the German economy, with a knock on effect across Europe.

The European Union was based, for much of its existence, on a Franco-German axis, but for the last quarter of a century that has broken down with Germany calling the shots. Now a neutered Berlin struggles to keep the show on the road.

Europe blindsided

If Hegseth’s speech was remarkable so too was another. When US Vice President J.D. Vance addressed the Munich Security Conference last week he asked this of European leaders: ‘… I’ve had many, many great conversations with many people gathered here in this room. I’ve heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and of course that’s important. But what has seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for. What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important?’

An unexpectedly great question. He went on to offer an answer: ‘I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions and the conscience that guide your very own people.’ Adding something which must have deepened the shock of Scholz, Macron, Starmer et al: ‘There is so much of value that can be accomplished with the kind of democratic mandate that I think will come from being more responsive to the voices of your citizens. If you’re going to enjoy competitive economies, if you’re going to enjoy affordable energy and secure supply chains, then you need mandates to govern because you have to make difficult choices to enjoy all of these things.’

Being responsive to the voices of your citizens: an obvious and vital ingredient of any democracy, but something alien to European leaders so committed to a neoliberal agenda which is hated by millions.

Vance then met the far-right AfD, which is expected to do well in the forthcoming German elections, in part because they oppose arming and funding Ukraine. What Vance was doing, as was Elon Musk earlier when he addressed the AfD conference via Zoom, was issuing a warning to the German elite that they had better kneel to Washington’s demands. The Christian Democrats are likely to lead a new coalition government and Vance was saying: ‘if you don’t accept our agenda we have new friends who will. So be warned.’

Imperial reconfiguration

Since 1945, the European parties, centre right and centre left, have been thoroughly Atlanticist, relying on America’s military shield in return for loyal service. Trump could not give a toss for this. When, days into taking office, he had a phone conversation with the Danish prime minister over his demand to buy Greenland, she began by offering an extra military base and mining rights. She was playing by the old Atlanticist rules. Trump was not and was having none of it. That created a shock not just in Copenhagen but across Europe’s capitals.

This is the end of a chapter stretching back to 1945 for Europe. Where does it leave the UK? Starmer is sounding tough but I believe he will continue Britain’s policy of being Washington’s loyal lap dog. I expect he will increase military spending to 5%, the 100-year-long treaty he has just signed with Ukraine will fade away and Britain will rush to show how eager it is to stand with the USA against China. That will just accelerate the erosion of support we are witnessing for Labour.

I am writing this from Edinburgh where the SNP-led Scottish government must be in a similar state of shell shock. Since the 2014 independence referendum, it has stressed its support for the EU, Nato and neoliberalism. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it competed with Westminster as to which was more supportive of Kyiv. Since Humza Yousaf was replaced by John Swinney, there has been radio silence on Palestine. Now it is left standing naked.

An end to the Russo-Ukraine war is to be welcomed. All the Europeans can do is try to get a seat at the US-Russian talks about to happen in Saudi Arabia. But all they can do there is try to block any deal. They have no other cards to play. Suppose they succeeded (unlikely) and the war continued. Apart from more dead Ukrainians and Russians, Putin would simply conquer more territory.

Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ agenda has started with the promise of trade wars, in the main with China. The cold war which exists in the South China Sea and Pacific between China and a US-led alliance of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and the UK is in danger of boiling over, given the huge military build-up there. The greatest danger to world peace is there.

Meanwhile, the Afd, The French National Rally and Reform UK will each be expecting a major benefit from all this. What of the left? So many ran to side with the new ‘brave little Belgium’ in the Russo-Ukraine war, they could not see it was a proxy war pitting Ukrainian lives against the regional power. They ended up siding with Nato and the US. Now they must realise they have been played.

For those of us who demanded peace talks from the start, it’s not just that we are vindicated. We need to insist that the left never again side with the Masters of War.