Like other close families, the US-Europe transatlantic partnership, built from the turbulent First World War, passed through occasional, intense moments.
The European powerhouse that refused to take part in President George W. Bush’s “chosen war” in Iraq in 2003 is an example. The fallout from a swipe with President Barack Obama’s NATO partner is another as a “free rider” who is reluctant to pay a fair share for his security.
But the harsh message of bond fraying, neglect and divergent values laid out by senior Trump administration officials for shocked European leaders last week, says this is more than a passing family spat. There are diplomats and veteran observers who are claiming.
Why did you write this?
A story focused on
For almost 80 years, the Transatlantic Alliance created mutual prosperity and brought peace to war-prone Europe. But we are seen as a fork in shared values, particularly Vice President JD Vance’s foray into German politics.
Instead, they see a fundamental change that can ultimately spell out the end of a bond that was almost eight years ago, at least until Russia’s war in Ukraine. The alliance also promoted mutual prosperity through the fierce economic ties that is the world’s vy hope.
“We’re a great place to go,” said Michael Desch, director of the International Security Center for Notre Dame in Indiana. “This is a sharp tear from fraying that started before Bush 43. So I don’t think I’ll come back.”
When Defense Secretary Pete Hegses gathered his European colleagues and said that the US could no longer be relied on as European security guarantors, it was calm enough. But Europeans have heard before (and did not listen to serious responses) the changing geostrategic priorities of America, particularly the warning against Asia.
What’s even more surprising was the prediction of high-level US-Russia negotiations on Ukraine beginning in Saudi Arabia without the participation of Europe or Ukraine. The talks, which have the biggest challenges to European security in the postwar era, demanded this week European security guarantees for peace agreements, but only Washington and Moscow have appeared on the table. Masu.
But for many, it is emphasising how much relationships have shifted, that Vice President JD Vance is not encouraging Europeans and adopting the values of a fierce population, but rather an old, entrenched elite. The goal was to govern the values of “awakening.”
The Germans chose to give Munich speech because Vance, who knew Germany was holding a national election this week, did not deal with the country’s far-right political parties, widely seen as having neo-Nazi elements. At that time it was stuck on the floor.
“It’s not Russia that I worry most about Europe and not China, not other outside actors,” the vice president told the shocked audience. “What I’m worried about is the threat from within,” he defined it as a denial of rights and freedoms to “minorities,” including far-right political forces.
To highlight his point, he declined a meeting with German Prime Minister Olaf Scholz, but sat down with Alice Weidel, co-leader of the German party’s extremist alternatives.
For many, this has been a blatant and destructive interference in domestic electoral politics – and a subtle version of election interference, where transatlantic partners often belong to negative external actors, including Russia and China. is not different.
“This is the US, one of its closest allies, trying to influence electoral politics, and is trying to put itself at the forefront of Europe’s right-wing populist forces, broader and more.
“In most cases, these are parties that don’t hold power,” he adds. “In effect, when the Vice President says that the biggest danger to European security is internal, it is an established political party, it is the US oversight with the opposition parties, and there is no precedent for that.”
For decades, the US and its NATO partners have long been able to say “shared values” as a kind of shorthand for a common commitment to democracy, human rights, and mutual defense that has helped Western allies through occasional differences in the past. I’m quoting it.
So when Vance denounced “retreat” from what he called “the most fundamental value that we share with the United States,” Europeans were the fundamental interpretation of these values from longtime partners. It showed a change.
“Surveying Vance values is evidence of the same politicization and culture wars that are internationalized in the United States,” says Dr. Desch. Citing immigrants, he added that one wedge issue Vance highlighted in his speech, “it’s the globalization of political polarization in America.”
For some, an increase in transatlantic divisions on value could ultimately raise questions about the survival of the NATO Alliance.
“Can we maintain a collective defense alliance if the social model has more and more different between the US and most European countries?” European Union in Egmont, the Royal Institute of International Relations in Brussels. says Sven Biscop, director of the World Programme.
Washington’s expulsion to Europe as a security partner could prove beneficial when European powers pressure them to take concrete steps towards collective security. says Dr. Biscop, who has long insisted that Europe will take on its own defensive burden.
But at the same time, he says, widening gaps in value will change the nature of transatlantic relations, particularly the NATO alliance.
“We don’t need to have the same domestic politics to maintain a successful defence alliance,” he says. “But if there are no elements that share value, it becomes an alliance that becomes a simpler transaction.”
