BECAUSE of being an untraditional and unconventional American, there is a slim chance that President- elect Donald Trump will not change the future course of US relationship with Europe and the NATO, particularly with reference to NATO’s eastward enlargement that is intrinsically seen by President Putin as a major security threat to Russia’s sovereignty. This is no more a shrouded truth that Donald Trump fosters skepticism regarding US’ foreign policy narrative vis-à-vis US-European security via NATO’s eastward enlargement. Thus, Trump’s 2.0 may shift U.S. alliances and priorities in ways that could profoundly affect transatlantic relationship. Other than the security issue, the challenges are still brewing to reset the US-Europe relations in terms of the US-Europe differences over trade and climate change, and Israel’s violations of international law, particularly Netanyahu’s Gaza genocide.
Fairly, the post –Cold War Russia-US diplomatic engagements indicate that the US had promised to not expand NATO an inch to the Russian borders—a commitment that the successive US governments have had clearly breached. The neutral western and eastern strategic analysts also argue that since NATO was a Cold War product, implications of its article 5 (collective defence) and article 10(NATO’s open door policy) in the post-Cold war era remain a controversial subject in today’s international relations. It is undeniably argued that Ii 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III purportedly assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe following the unification of Germany. Since 1994, the US sponsored NATO’s partnership for peace (PFP)—focusing on NATO’s expansion —also accompanied by NATO’s open door policy, has ever remained a source of discomfiture for Moscow.American political scientist and former US Government advisor to Ukraine, John Mearshiemer, recently, unfolded the truth regarding US’ controversial NATO’s expansion marked by Russia’s security concerns. He argues that US pragmatic withdrawal from expanding NATO to Ukraine could be a recipe to stop Russia’s war in Ukraine. Another American political analyst, Robert Y. Shapiro argues: “Russia has shown similar concerns but NATO has long made Russia uneasy and the expansion has caused much greater tensions as did the end of the Soviet Union and its satellite supporters’’.
Strategically, Putin’s war on Ukraine has an organic relation with NATO’s eastward expansion. In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine’s borders and issued demands, notably including a ban on Ukraine joining NATO, which reflected Moscow’s apprehension about NATO’s expansion eastward—endorsed by Putin’s opposition of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO— encircling Russia’s borders. Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine in February 2022 was significantly influenced by Russia’s concerns over Ukraine’s potential entry into NATO. Putin views the potential accession of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO as a direct threat to Moscow. For Moscow, the ongoing war in Ukraine is Russia’s strategic offence to counter its security threats as the Kremlin believes NATO supports Ukraine’s defence capabilities against Russia. Moscow’s security concerns have been further intensified by US’ operation of its current NATO’s broader missile base in northern Poland (Nov 13).
That said, Trump is also believed to have expressed skepticism regarding foreign interventions and international expansionism, favouring a more isolationist approach with a focus on American interests over engagements that stretch U.S. military and economic resources abroad. Ideologically, Trump has expressed skepticism regarding foreign interventions and international expansionism, favouring a more isolationist approach with a focus on American interests over engagements that stretch US military and economic resources abroad. Consequently, this shift could foster new dynamics in NATO, requiring Europe to increase military spending and develop independent defence strategies. Additionally, Trump’s focus on “America First” could drastically affect the future of transatlantic relations, especially if Trump withdraws from the European security structure.
Agreeably, the US and European Union have a strong economic relationship, being each other’s largest trading partners. However, differing regulatory approaches, particularly regarding sustainability and environmental regulations, can lead to tensions in trade discussions. For instance, the emphasis on green technology and climate policies by the EU may conflict with more flexible regulatory standards in the U.S. These growing differences could fundamentally impact negotiations on tariffs, investment agreements, and trade deals, potentially leading to trade barriers or more stringent requirements for climate standards to be affected by Trump’s rejection of the Paris Climate Accords. Moreover, the Eurozone is the second-biggest economy in the world, and Brussels will be in a powerful position to retaliate in any trade war with the US. This represents a political dilemma for Britain. It invites Prime Minister Keir Starmer to revisit the Brexit, thereby imposing retaliatory tariffs on Trump’s America and championing free trade in Europe. Further, US-UK relations could face challenges primarily due to Trump’s “America First” agenda. While the UK and US would likely remain important allies, Trump’s focus on prioritizing American interests might lead to friction in areas such as trade, defence cooperation, and global diplomacy. This could cast impact on Washington-London’s traditional partnership.
And importantly yet, under the Trump administration, the growing differences— between Washington and Brussels over their respective approaches vis-a vis towards Netanyahu’s committed crime of genocide –could adopt a divergent course as EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has bluntly accused Netanyahu of committing genocide in Gaza whereas US-State Department does not support this view. Brussels has often adopted a more critical stance towards Israel, emphasizing international law while still maintaining a relationship framed by economic interests. Conversely, Washington tends to prioritize its alliance with Israel, focusing on geopolitical considerations over accusations of crimes against humanity, including war crimes. Thus, EU’s policy makers must be evaluating Trump’s selection of his administration team with a focus on how his approach will affect transatlantic relations, especially since he favours bilateral negotiations over multilateral agreements.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. He also deals with the strategic issues.
