The world of politics in this century continues to shock and astonish us. We never thought we’d witness such a rapid decline in the quality of political leadership, with the law of the jungle being openly embraced by the most powerful nations on the planet. It seemed impossible that the most aggressive, dangerous, and expansionist states – all of which are oppressive dictatorships – could enter and exit the closet of shame and become respectable international interlocutors based on the fleeting interests of the global economy or major powers.
Let’s recall that two atrocious regimes, Iran and Venezuela, managed to return to oil markets to alleviate the inflationary crisis caused, ironically, by sanctions against Russia. Geopolitics has never been a paragon of ethics, morality, or values, but there were certain rules and principles that prevented humanity from becoming embroiled in global conflicts, with the attendant risk of nuclear holocaust. All of this, whatever was left, has been swept away, perhaps forever.
The shameful scene in the Oval Office, which left the entire world aghast, seemed like a scene from a movie about a highly dysfunctional family. None of the most basic rules of courtesy, diplomacy, or civilized relations between sovereign states were respected – by either party. Obviously, the host, who also presented himself as a mediator, has a greater obligation to uphold these principles. President Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, who is known for his sometimes shocking honesty (and is generally considered a polite and courteous individual), culminated in what some described as a perfectly scripted scenario.
In the verbal escalation, Vice President Vance accused Zelenskyy of supporting Kamala Harris’s campaign in October, just before the elections. Vance appears to have forgotten that he did the same in Germany with the AfD, as after delivering his contentious speech at the Munich Security Conference, he traveled to Berlin to meet with the leader of the German far-right party, Alice Weidel. This is without mentioning the unbridled activism of Elon Musk in favor of certain far-right political options in Europe, including the AfD itself.
To describe President Zelenskyy’s reaction, I’ll quote Ukrainian journalist Myroslava Petsa of the BBC, who asked what would happen if Russia failed to respect ceasefire agreements. She stated on the BBC’s “Weekend” program that a president should be held to a higher standard, and that Zelenskyy had lost his nerves and composure, falling into the provocation that his hosts had intended. Meetings between heads of state and government can be extraordinarily tense, but forms are usually maintained in front of the media and in public. I fear that, in this new era of crudeness and boorishness, which is not unique to Trump, we haven’t seen the worst yet.
The long-term consequences of this transatlantic fracture will be profound and lasting. Even a moderate and temperate individual like Friedrich Merz, the leader of the German CDU and future federal chancellor, who is also a fervent defender of the transatlantic relationship, has stated that Europe must prepare to take firm steps towards strategic independence and defense from the US. Before this incident, Merz had already announced the imminent launch of an agreement with the UK and France to extend their nuclear umbrella to Europe, in anticipation of a potential shift in US strategy regarding Europe’s protection with strategic weapons. Virtually all European leaders have reacted similarly, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who said that everything possible should be done to get the relationship with the US back on track. The deafening silence from Budapest is noteworthy.
The most serious aspect of all this is that President Trump’s isolationist turn has been gestating for years, and the transformation of many members of Congress and Republican senators, who initially supported Ukraine and criticized Russia at the start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, has been shifting towards the positions defended by the president and his circle. In the “Trumpian” world, isolationism, coldness towards Europe, rejection of Ukraine, or pro-Russian or “Putinist” sympathies (which are distinct and have different origins and motivations) among some ultra-conservative sectors, are driven by political, personal, or ideological motivations that are very different.
It would be tedious to delve into all of them, but suffice it to say that they range from a primitive but sincere “America-first” stance to the absurdity of very conservative evangelical sectors that consider Putin and Trump the new guardians of Christianity. The most dangerous, however, is the effective penetration of Russian propaganda, manipulation, disinformation, and corruption. Russian operatives in Europe and the US don’t rest, and some have lost all shame, asserting without embarrassment that once Russia achieves a ceasefire that consolidates and recognizes its illegal conquests and annexations, it won’t embark on any new adventures because it has enough territory and resources (sic). This might explain why Finland and Sweden, after decades of neutrality, have decided to join NATO. Sweden has renounced what could be described as “neutralism,” a form of identity-based neutrality that was an essential part of its national DNA until now.
Europeans, as always, have awakened late, and we’ve spent decades living in our prosperity bubble, where the happy idyll never really existed. Our economic and social problems have only worsened, and our political class has proven incapable of addressing our grave ills in a solid and effective manner. We’ve chosen to ignore strategic and security challenges, and that’s how it’s going for us. In a recent debate on Azerbaijani TV, I had the opportunity to exchange arguments with a Russian diplomat who insisted, like all Russian media operatives, on the infamous three conditions that Putin imposed to avoid invading Ukraine three years ago: first, what they call “normalization,” meaning the return to power of pro-Russian figures like Yanukovich and company; second, the “denazification” of the country, a absurdity that doesn’t deserve comment; and third, the demilitarization of Ukraine and its “Finlandization,” referring to the term coined by West Germans in the 1960s to describe the Soviet maneuver of imposing neutrality on Finland.
The return to maximalist Russian arguments has been encouraged, without a doubt, by the new US foreign policy and the latest events and speeches from the Trump administration. The most sensible voices in the Trump administration claim that nothing has changed, that Europe remains the US’s great ally. Unfortunately, the facts are tragically stubborn and contradict their good intentions.
The consequences cannot be more unsettling: I’ll mention a few that deserve to be developed in another article.
1) The grave weakening of NATO: Trumpism fails to understand that NATO’s deterrent capacity is based on the synergy of collective defense and that the power of the sum of its parts, no matter how small, is far superior to their arithmetic result. Article 5, which provides for automatic defense (an attack on one member is an attack on all), may be seriously wounded, and we can only hope it’s not fatal.
2) The erosion of the transatlantic relationship to unsuspected extremes, installing mutual distrust and animosity, as well as confirming a growing divergence of interests that could take at least a generation to heal.
3) An unfair peace that favors the aggressor and gravely and irreversibly damages the victim would mark the end of the principle of international legality and legitimacy, as well as the inviolability of borders. This sends a disastrous message that will embolden the most aggressive and expansionist regimes in the world, as international bullying, far from being punished, is rewarded. What will the US do if China decides to invade Taiwan? Will it sit down to talk with Xi Jinping in a “fruitful conversation”? We already know that Trump 2.0 considers China its greatest rival, but the Ukrainian message is being measured meticulously by Beijing.
4) Abominable regimes like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and, above all, Iran, may be tempted to resume their destabilizing activities and restart proxy wars (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shia terrorist militias in Iraq, Syria, and Central Asia) that could ignite another regional or global conflict with catastrophic consequences. 5) When the West distances itself or, worse, divides, the worst elements on the planet grow bolder, and jihadist terrorism or terrorism of any other execrable ideology will take advantage of the gap to strike with increasingly lethal force. Short-sightedness, navel-gazing, and the law of the argumentative funnel have consequences that go far beyond the halls of power, even the Oval Office itself.