With a hypothetical return of Donald Trump to the White House, questions 
arise over the future of U.S. foreign policy and defense strategy, 
particularly concerning America’s role as a global stabilizer. Trump’s 
first term left a lasting impact on U.S. alliances by emphasizing a 
transactional approach to military support and urging allies to take on 
greater defense responsibilities. Now, as Trump’s platform pivots toward 
"peace through strength," (see: 
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-foreign-policy-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V04.A7MT.Hwz3xuxvD5CY&smid=url-share
 
for a take on such a future; alleged errors of Biden/Harris years) he 
criticizes the "weakness" he perceives in Biden’s defense strategy. A 
second Trump administration would likely favor a hard-nosed, scaled-down 
approach to global engagement, focusing America’s power more selectively on 
areas of immediate national interest, especially the Indo-Pacific, where 
China looms as the primary threat.


Trump’s message implies that the U.S., under his leadership, would project 
power but limit foreign entanglements. His approach would likely pull back 
from longstanding commitments that do not directly serve U.S. interests, 
including parts of Europe and the Middle East, with military resources 
centered on areas of high strategic importance. In Trump’s vision, this 
prioritization would deter threats more efficiently, consolidating U.S. 
power against adversaries like China without depleting resources on 
secondary engagements. Trump’s allies, such as Robert C. O’Brien and 
Elbridge Colby, argue that Biden’s approach has dissipated U.S. military 
strength in scattered conflicts, leaving the country vulnerable and unable 
to confront genuine threats with full force. The Trumpian platform 
criticizes the Biden administration’s global commitments as stretching 
resources thinly and creating a predictable stance, whereas an 
unpredictable deterrent—using limited but targeted power—would be more 
effective.


However, while a concentrated military focus on China might enhance U.S. 
readiness for a major confrontation, it risks new complications. An 
indefinite U.S. deployment in the Indo-Pacific would mirror past 
entanglements in the Middle East, where adversaries prolonged engagements 
to drain U.S. resources. China could adopt a similar strategy, waiting out 
U.S. forces while leveraging economic and diplomatic power in other 
regions. Trump’s approach also introduces a pressing question for Europe: 
If the U.S. deprioritizes European security, is Europe prepared to assume 
greater responsibility for its defense, countering Russian aggression and 
securing its interests independently?


In this context, Europe would need to balance pragmatic defense measures 
with a renewed vision for a unified and resilient future. On one hand, 
European defense experts like Franz-Stefan Gady argue that Europe must 
urgently confront the reality of deterrence and self-defense. According to 
Gady, Europe, especially Germany, has relied on U.S. protection while 
morally denouncing military engagement—a stance he describes as “parasitic 
pacifism.” For Europe to respond effectively to potential threats, Gady 
contends, it must develop a comprehensive defense strategy that combines 
deterrence with self-sufficiency. This requires European nations, 
particularly Germany, to make significant investments in their defense 
capabilities, improving logistical support, intelligence sharing, and 
technological integration. Germany, positioned as NATO’s logistical hub, 
would need to work closely with Poland and other regional partners to 
establish a robust deterrent structure. Strengthening cooperation with 
neighboring countries like Poland would be crucial, as Germany’s strategic 
location would make it both a staging ground for NATO and a primary target 
for potential adversaries in a conflict scenario. Although I don’t normally 
lean right, this is where I agree, given these scenarios. I’m not a 
pacifist when the democratic idea itself is under attack.

Gady’s perspective highlights Europe’s need to rethink its reliance on 
external protection and embrace a proactive defense strategy. By investing 
in modernized forces, cyber and intelligence networks, and next-generation 
defense technologies, Europe could mitigate the risks of a reduced U.S. 
presence while reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank. Such a shift would not 
only allow Europe to deter potential aggressors but also position it as a 
more equal partner to the U.S., fostering a more balanced transatlantic 
relationship based on shared responsibility rather than dependence.


On the other hand, Europe has an opportunity to adopt a visionary approach 
inspired by leaders like John F. Kennedy, who saw ambitious, transformative 
goals as acts of optimism that could unite societies and define their 
futures. Kennedy’s 1962 "Moonshot Speech" exemplified how a nation could 
rally around a shared objective, driven by a commitment to progress and 
exploration. In today’s landscape, Europe faces a similar chance to unify 
around visionary goals that both strengthen its internal cohesion and 
position it as a leader in addressing global challenges. Rather than 
accepting a passive role, Europe could seize this moment to assert itself 
on the world stage, becoming a beacon of democratic values and 
technological innovation. A Trump term would provide motivation for Europe 
to overcome the local petty differences between governments as consensus is 
easier to achieve facing existential threats. I admit that I’m painting a 
rosy picture but such threats would necessitate a more coherent Europe. 


With climate change, digital transformation, and the rise of 
authoritarianism threatening the global order, Europe has the opportunity 
to implement more ambitious initiatives in sustainability, digital rights, 
and democratic governance. By committing to net-zero emissions and 
pioneering renewable energy technologies, Europe could not only combat 
climate change but also establish itself more as a provider of sustainable 
solutions globally. With the US in Trump navel gazing mode (the navel would 
be great again) and other powers looking solely at immediate costs and 
margins, perhaps European research could find its footing out of the recent 
decline. This would bolster Europe’s soft power, promoting a democratic 
model that counters the influence of authoritarian regimes. 


Similarly, by setting ethical standards for artificial intelligence, 
cybersecurity, and digital rights, Europe could present a democratic 
alternative to the authoritarian models of digital governance, reinforcing 
its commitment to human rights and personal autonomy. This vision would 
unify European nations around a positive, transformative agenda, 
galvanizing public support and creating a counterweight to the pessimism 
and isolationism shaping politics in both the U.S. and authoritarian states.


These two perspectives—a pragmatic defense strategy and a visionary 
societal commitment—are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they complement 
each other, forming a robust framework through which Europe can navigate an 
uncertain global landscape. As the U.S. potentially scales back its 
commitments, Europe’s need for a comprehensive defense strategy becomes 
even more critical. By bolstering its military readiness, Europe can secure 
its autonomy, making it less vulnerable to the influence of authoritarian 
states. This pragmatic approach aligns with Trump’s expectation that allies 
should shoulder more of their defense burden, potentially strengthening 
U.S.-European relations by fostering a partnership based on mutual 
capability rather than dependency.


At the same time, Europe’s adoption of Kennedy-style goals offers a 
counterbalance to the transactional and authoritarian tendencies shaping 
global politics. In embracing ambitious goals for technological 
advancement, environmental responsibility, and democratic integrity, Europe 
could redefine its role as a forward-thinking block and get out of 
gridlocks that plague it. This kind of visionary agenda would foster 
internal unity within the European Union, rallying citizens around shared 
objectives that transcend national boundaries and reflect a commitment to 
collective progress.


In a world increasingly influenced by authoritarianism, Europe’s ability to 
blend realism with idealism would appear more essential to preserving 
democratic values. The defense measures Gady advocates would empower Europe 
to stand independently, deterring aggressors and securing its place as a 
stable, reliable, democratic actor on the global stage. Meanwhile, a 
commitment to progressive goals in sustainability, technology, and 
governance could elevate Europe’s influence, proving that democratic 
societies can adapt and thrive in the face of existential challenges.


A second Trump presidency, with its emphasis on selective engagement and 
cost-cutting in foreign commitments, would likely reshape global dynamics, 
placing additional pressure on Europe to define its path. Yet, by embracing 
both a pragmatic defense policy and a visionary agenda, Europe could rise 
to this challenge, transforming itself into a bastion of democratic 
resilience while the US navel gazes itself into deporting migrants, 
undermining checks and balances, hating itself. In doing so, Europe would 
not only protect its interests but also offer the world an enduring model 
for democratic strength and innovation. As US isolationism and MAGA 
"aspirations" would abdicate the throne of "leader of the free world" in 
favor of "leader in navel gazing + isolationism", somebody would have to 
step up. And this just might be the kick in the butt Europe needs to quit 
the partisan national gridlock that has been plaguing it for the last 
decades. Of course, everything could fall apart here too with more right 
wing influence. But the geopolitical circumstance could frame isolationism 
as unpatriotic and also limit this damage in face of unifying existential 
threats.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17873a90-ef50-4b57-aba7-10c9a69002a4n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to