Europe is worried. Donald Trump’s statement last week that he would “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to Nato allies that don’t spend enough on defence has made many European officials and leaders acutely uneasy. He is, after all, the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination and polls above incumbent Joe Biden in many surveys ahead of the November presidential election in the US.
Trump’s irritation towards fellow Nato members that do not spend 2% of their GDP on defence is well known, as is his soft spot for Russian President Vladimir Putin. The uncomfortable reality is that only 11 Nato states spent more than the requirement of 2% of GDP on defence last year. Thirteen EU members did not, including Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
However, this outburst — in effect threatening that a Trump administration might ignore Nato’s mutual defence clause and not come to the aid of a Nato member attacked by Russia — sets an extraordinary precedent.
Unsurprisingly, European politicians were quick to react with furious indignation. Even the usually reserved Nato secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, snapped back, saying: “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.”
With a second Trump term in the White House looking increasingly likely, Europe is already feeling less safe. And it goes beyond merely defence budgets.
Should he be re-elected, Europe — and the rest of the world — should be bracing for an intensified version of the “America First” doctrine which allies had to contend with during his first presidency. Europeans are all too aware that Nato’s Article 5 principle — that all allies must come to the aid of one that is attacked — is not legally binding. It is, moreover, a promise, to perform “such action as [a country] deems necessary” that seeks to deter any adversary by instilling the fear of provoking a united response.
The implications of questioning such a cornerstone of global order are profound.
First, it makes Nato member states feel immediately less safe. Last week, Denmark’s defence minister warned that Russia could attack a Nato country in as little as three years, in the latest and starkest warning from a Western official about Moscow’s appetite for confrontation beyond its war in Ukraine.
“It cannot be ruled out that within a three- to five-year period, Russia will test Article 5 and Nato’s solidarity. That was not Nato’s assessment in 2023. This is new information that is coming to the fore now,” Troels Lund Poulsen told Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper.
Second, another Trump presidency would strain European unity as never before. With European parliamentary elections anticipated to reflect increasing support for far-right parties across the bloc, a Trump victory would embolden nationalist leaders and parties. Figures like Matteo Salvini in Italy and Viktor Orbán in Hungary would probably feel bolstered by Trump’s re-election, potentially leading to shifts in policies such as support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.
However, there is a counter-argument. Faced with a volatile US administration and a looming existential threat from Russia, Europe could be compelled to deepen integration for a true geopolitical federation. This would involve multigenerational investments in defence, and necessitate further economic and fiscal integration to achieve the “Strategic Autonomy” as advocated by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Europe is suffering from a half-baked monetary union that lacks sufficient fiscal and political integration.
Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, famously said, “Europe will be forged in crisis, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.”
Another Trump presidency could indeed be that crisis which takes Europe forward to far greater degrees of integration, purely because, without such integration, it would not survive.
Finally, a second Trump presidency would not only affect Nato and Europe, but also have broader implications for global security and economic stability. The security guarantee provided by the US has been a cornerstone of Western stability and global order since World War 2, contributing to global peace and prosperity. The return of Trump to the White House would jeopardise this constancy, making the world a more uncertain place.
Already the world may be moving inexorably towards a new, far less stable, far more anarchic global system. The events of the past two years, primarily in Ukraine and the Middle East, would seem to confirm that. However, that does not make this outcome any less concerning. As the US elections approach, all countries, including South Africa, must be prepared to navigate the potential consequences of such a reality. DM