How much longer can we go on regarding the United States as an ally? Last week, Donald Trump stopped the provision of intelligence information to Ukraine, thus leaving it blind to incoming missile and drone attacks from Russia. This is effectively an act of aggression against a country which the UK and the rest of Europe certainly do regard as an ally. The ramifications are devastating.
We – along with other member states of Nato – have (or had) a mutual defence arrangement with the US which involved intelligence sharing. The anglophone countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, have a separate intelligence-sharing operation – the Five Eyes agreement – which is generally considered the most effective security network in the world. The US government has now unilaterally withdrawn its acceptance of what had been the agreed policy of these agencies. This has to be seen as a breach of the mutual trust and shared objectives of those alliances.
More recent is the advent of the Aukus agreement binding the UK, Australia and the US into a tripartite network of security and support. (It became apparent last week that President Trump had never heard of this.) Aukus was regarded as a major breakthrough in guaranteeing a free and open Indo-Pacific which should be a significant concern for the US.
What is left of that now that the American administration feels free to make arbitrary unilateral decisions to abandon or reverse the policies that would once have been common ground between the member states? To put it bluntly, can the US now be regarded as a safe partner in any negotiated international security undertaking?
If the American president is deliberately choosing to damage the ability of a nation which we unambiguously regard as friendly to defend itself against an invading enemy, can we trust the US government with the security information which we would once have expected to share in our mutual interest?
Must the US now be regarded, not just as an unreliable ally, but as an unfriendly power and a danger to the West? Has its government, for whatever whimsical, personality-driven reasons, simply decided to support the traditional enemy? The American talk show host, Bill Maher, joked last week that the Cold War was back but “the last time, the White House was on our side”. Which gets to the heart of it, of course.
The Trump argument would be that anybody can be on our side so long as their actions are helpful to our interests. And that means specifically to America’s interests – even when they conflict with those of the West at large. Whose side he is on is a matter of day-to-day strategic calculation – moral standards, historic loyalties and common political values have no weight.
Supposedly this is all to do with putting America’s economic advantage above everything: particularly in regard to the unfair share of the expense that the US has provided to Nato’s military funding in return for which – to hear Trump tell it – it has received nothing in return. Like many of the President’s pronouncements, this is factually wrong.
The first and only time that Nato’s Article Five collective defence provision has been enacted was in response to the 9/11 terror attacks on the US which resulted in French and British troops being sent into Afghanistan. It is true that the US supplies a disproportionate percentage of the financial backing for Nato but it is not true that it has never received anything in return.
Trump gambles on the US never really needing the collective protection of Nato because, as he frequently puts it, we have an ocean between us and the threat of European conflagration. Let the Europeans huddle together for reassurance and mutual help. The US under his cynical leadership can play anybody against anybody in whatever way suits its immediate circumstances.
If you do not believe that his message is as ruthless and amoral as this, I suggest that you listen to what he is saying and take him at his word. You may argue that his words change from one day to the next. That is true – but it only serves to make him even more unreliable as a security partner.
There is a real risk that Old Europe, with its super sophisticated and rather devious view of world affairs, will over-interpret the Trump phenomenon: he is not more complicated and impenetrable than he appears. On the contrary, his interpretation of the world and America’s future in it are very, very simple. He is like the comic book character Lex Luthor, an egocentric, megalomaniac businessman who uses his vast corporation to be, in turns, both antagonist and ally to the forces of the Good.
But most significantly, the one consistent theme in his varying diatribes is his bond with Vladimir Putin which appears to be unsusceptible to doubt. Even his new threat of sanctions against Russia means little because it is framed in the context of bringing a “peace” which would disadvantage Ukraine. If the West takes this seriously – as it should – then it must conclude that, for the moment, the US is not a reliable partner or a safe confidant for intelligence purposes.
So where does that leave Old Europe? Is it an antiquated irrelevance in this new world which is to be run by the triumvirate of superpowers - the US, Russia and China? This is what Trump clearly believes. He seems not to have noticed that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is in an economic and demographic doom cycle. But what about that critical question: does Europe still matter? Can it still be a force in this new ruthless world?
You bet it can. Because the British and European way of life is the one most people in the world long for. Europe has learned from its history with its terrible events – and come to terms with it. Its particular mix of old culture and new social attitudes is what draws everyone from the poor of the developing world, to the super rich oligarchs of Russia and the Hollywood stars of the US to these shores. Hold on to that.
How much longer can we go on regarding the United States as an ally? Last week, Donald Trump stopped the provision of intelligence information to Ukraine, thus leaving it blind to incoming missile and drone attacks from Russia. This is effectively an act of aggression against a country which the UK and the rest of Europe certainly do regard as an ally. The ramifications are devastating.
We – along with other member states of Nato – have (or had) a mutual defence arrangement with the US which involved intelligence sharing. The anglophone countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, have a separate intelligence-sharing operation – the Five Eyes agreement – which is generally considered the most effective security network in the world. The US government has now unilaterally withdrawn its acceptance of what had been the agreed policy of these agencies. This has to be seen as a breach of the mutual trust and shared objectives of those alliances.
More recent is the advent of the Aukus agreement binding the UK, Australia and the US into a tripartite network of security and support. (It became apparent last week that President Trump had never heard of this.) Aukus was regarded as a major breakthrough in guaranteeing a free and open Indo-Pacific which should be a significant concern for the US.
What is left of that now that the American administration feels free to make arbitrary unilateral decisions to abandon or reverse the policies that would once have been common ground between the member states? To put it bluntly, can the US now be regarded as a safe partner in any negotiated international security undertaking?
If the American president is deliberately choosing to damage the ability of a nation which we unambiguously regard as friendly to defend itself against an invading enemy, can we trust the US government with the security information which we would once have expected to share in our mutual interest?
Must the US now be regarded, not just as an unreliable ally, but as an unfriendly power and a danger to the West? Has its government, for whatever whimsical, personality-driven reasons, simply decided to support the traditional enemy? The American talk show host, Bill Maher, joked last week that the Cold War was back but “the last time, the White House was on our side”. Which gets to the heart of it, of course.
The Trump argument would be that anybody can be on our side so long as their actions are helpful to our interests. And that means specifically to America’s interests – even when they conflict with those of the West at large. Whose side he is on is a matter of day-to-day strategic calculation – moral standards, historic loyalties and common political values have no weight.
Supposedly this is all to do with putting America’s economic advantage above everything: particularly in regard to the unfair share of the expense that the US has provided to Nato’s military funding in return for which – to hear Trump tell it – it has received nothing in return. Like many of the President’s pronouncements, this is factually wrong.
The first and only time that Nato’s Article Five collective defence provision has been enacted was in response to the 9/11 terror attacks on the US which resulted in French and British troops being sent into Afghanistan. It is true that the US supplies a disproportionate percentage of the financial backing for Nato but it is not true that it has never received anything in return.
Trump gambles on the US never really needing the collective protection of Nato because, as he frequently puts it, we have an ocean between us and the threat of European conflagration. Let the Europeans huddle together for reassurance and mutual help. The US under his cynical leadership can play anybody against anybody in whatever way suits its immediate circumstances.
If you do not believe that his message is as ruthless and amoral as this, I suggest that you listen to what he is saying and take him at his word. You may argue that his words change from one day to the next. That is true – but it only serves to make him even more unreliable as a security partner.
There is a real risk that Old Europe, with its super sophisticated and rather devious view of world affairs, will over-interpret the Trump phenomenon: he is not more complicated and impenetrable than he appears. On the contrary, his interpretation of the world and America’s future in it are very, very simple. He is like the comic book character Lex Luthor, an egocentric, megalomaniac businessman who uses his vast corporation to be, in turns, both antagonist and ally to the forces of the Good.
But most significantly, the one consistent theme in his varying diatribes is his bond with Vladimir Putin which appears to be unsusceptible to doubt. Even his new threat of sanctions against Russia means little because it is framed in the context of bringing a “peace” which would disadvantage Ukraine. If the West takes this seriously – as it should – then it must conclude that, for the moment, the US is not a reliable partner or a safe confidant for intelligence purposes.
So where does that leave Old Europe? Is it an antiquated irrelevance in this new world which is to be run by the triumvirate of superpowers - the US, Russia and China? This is what Trump clearly believes. He seems not to have noticed that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is in an economic and demographic doom cycle. But what about that critical question: does Europe still matter? Can it still be a force in this new ruthless world?
You bet it can. Because the British and European way of life is the one most people in the world long for. Europe has learned from its history with its terrible events – and come to terms with it. Its particular mix of old culture and new social attitudes is what draws everyone from the poor of the developing world, to the super rich oligarchs of Russia and the Hollywood stars of the US to these shores. Hold on to that.