shiftingwindthreshold

[shiftingwindthreshold]

"translation": "The rift between the US and Europe has widened, with a significant shift in America's attitude towards Europe.

Recently, there has been a noticeable change in the US stance towards European countries, drawing widespread international attention. This shift is evident across political, military, and economic domains, profoundly impacting the trajectory of US-EU relations.

Politically, the actions and statements of US officials have deeply unsettled European nations. Vice President Vance, at the Munich Security Conference, launched a fierce critique of Europe on issues such as democracy and immigration, questioning whether current European values are worth defending for the US. He also criticized Germany's immigration policies, the EU Commission, and several European countries, including the UK. Such open and sharp criticism is rare in previous US-EU relations, breaking the tacit and restrained nature of their political dialogue. US Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Kaley, even explicitly stated at the Munich conference that there would be no place for Europe in the Ukraine-Russia negotiations, completely disregarding Europe's geopolitical interests and deep involvement in the conflict. Previously, President Trump had directly spoken with Russian President Putin without adequately consulting European allies beforehand, marginalizing Europe on the issue of Ukraine and making them feel their security concerns were not given due importance by the US.

In terms of military affairs, the wavering of the US commitment to European security is another clear manifestation of this attitudinal shift. US Defense Secretary Heggeseeth openly declared that NATO European member states should shoulder more financial responsibilities and should not assume that the US will maintain its military presence in Europe indefinitely. This statement overturns the traditional perception of the US as the 'umbrella' of European security since World War II. For a long time, European countries have heavily relied on the US for security, with the US maintaining a dominant military position within the NATO framework. Now, this move undoubtedly brings significant uncertainty to the European security landscape. For example, regarding Ukraine, the US has shown an ambiguous stance on military aid to Ukraine, even temporarily cutting off crucial assistance, which runs counter to the expectations of European countries for continued strong support to Ukraine to counterbalance Russia. This raises concerns among European nations about whether the US might abandon its security commitments to Europe at critical moments.

Similarly, discordant notes are also emerging in the economic sphere. Traditionally, the US, leveraging its powerful economy, has played a leading role in transatlantic economic cooperation, reinforcing US-EU economic ties through various trade agreements and economic aid, such as the Marshall Plan, which was crucial for post-WWII European economic recovery. However, now, to protect its own economic interests, the US frequently wields protectionist measures, threatening to impose tariffs on European goods. In the context of global economic restructuring, the US is redirecting more economic resources and strategic focus towards emerging markets like Asia-Pacific, reducing its attention and investment in Europe, no longer prioritizing Europe as a key direction for economic cooperation. This has led to more barriers for European businesses in the US market, escalating trade frictions between the two sides, severely undermining the long-established economic trust and cooperation foundation.

Underlying the shift in the US attitude towards Europe are complex strategic considerations. From the perspective of the US's own strategic adjustments, with the rise of the Asia-Pacific region's economy and increasing geopolitical significance, since Obama's push for the 'Pivot to Asia' agenda, the US's strategic focus has continuously shifted eastward.

[shiftingwindthreshold]

#fickle allies Trump is abandoning America's European allies

It’s difficult to exaggerate just how much global politics have changed in the past few weeks. NATO is on its last breath. The U.S.-guarded international order is a mild bout of flu away from expiring. Europeans feel that U.S. President Donald Trump has just signed away Eastern Europe to the Russians again. As people in these parts say, in reflection of the Munich Agreement and the Yalta Conference, decisions are now being made “about us without us.” Whether all of this is a grand bluff waits to be seen. But a father who threatens to walk out on his kids will never enjoy the same degree of trust again.

Amid all the opprobrium and head-scratching, much of the European media and commentariat have been completely ignorant about why Washington apparently thinks it needs to abandon Europe: to focus on the Indo-Pacific. Events of recent weeks will be claimed as big victories by the likes of Elbridge Colby, now undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon, who has been lobbying for years for America to get out of Europe and jump further into Asian security. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Europeans that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe” and that Washington was now focusing on China, which has “the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific.”

Perhaps it’s only at the edges, but one detects a little glee from some folks in Asia. Sorry, Europe, but now it’s our time to bask in America’s protective glow. Some schadenfreude is also probably at hand; many Southeast Asians, in particular, have favorable views of Vladimir Putin and Russia and weren’t too happy at being told by the Biden administration and Europeans that they were unethical for not caring more about events in Eastern Europe. I heard that at the recent Honolulu Defense Forum, a South Korean delegate suggested that “cutting a deal with Russia will allow America to focus on deterring the might of China.”

There are reasons to be skeptical. Capitulation in Ukraine isn’t going to hold back Putin’s imperial motives, so this won’t be the end of violence in Europe. America only really gets out of Europe when it quits NATO, which it hasn’t yet. So, just as President Barack Obama kept a toe in the Middle East while his “pivot of Asia” was an excuse to get out of that region, America will continue being dragged back into European security problems. There’s also the case that, should a transatlantic president replace Trump, all this might be reversed. Asian allies would be best not to bet on this new “pivot” being durable.

More importantly, can anyone confidently deny the following statement? Trump is prepared to ditch America’s European allies during a continental crisis, but he wouldn’t do the same with America’s Asian allies. It’s getting rather tiresome to constantly see people clutching at “transactional” as a comforting adjective for Trump’s foreign policy. In reality, Trump is a pathological pacifist who, for all his faux nationalism, cannot comprehend the love of one’s homeland and why anyone would risk their lives to defend it. So he cannot understand why anyone would go to war to defend themselves against an invader or to fight for their liberty.

Like pacifists before him, particularly the 1930s variant, this has developed into an unhealthy fascination with imperialists and tyrants. For Trump, patriotism, love of one’s culture or traditions, comradeship, and desire for liberty are mere distractions from the purpose of life: making money. In a telling anecdote, John Kelly, his former White House chief of staff, recalled standing with Trump next to the grave of Kelly’s son, who was killed in Afghanistan. Trump apparently turned to him and said: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”

Because he doesn’t “get it,” he assumes everyone else must be motivated by the same base motives as his. Politicians lead their people into wars for profits or personal power. Soldiers must be ���suckers” (his description of Americans who died in the Second World War) for thinking that they are actually fighting for something bigger. Since it’s all a scam, just sign a peace deal (however unfair it is) and get on with making money!

Had Trump said that America was getting out of town and it now was up to the Europeans to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, had he said that Ukrainians could keep on fighting but they’d have to now pay America for weapons – that would have been a bitter pill but at least a digestible one. But what’s this? Trump is insisting that Europeans are now responsible for their own security while America (without European participation) is directly in charge of peace talks (surrender talks, more accurately) with Putin, which will create even more instability in Eastern Europe.

Moreover, Trump wants to get Ukraine off the table so that he can repair relations with Moscow. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, told his Russian counterpart of “the incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians” if they could simply dispose of the Ukraine war. What opportunities? Washington has pissed off most of Europe (U.S. exports to the European Union were worth $370 billion in 2023) in order to repair relations with Russia (U.S. exports to Russia were worth $6.4 billion before the Ukraine war started).