Wednesday, December 11, 2024

European defence dream may not survive Donald Trump in 2025

Long feared, the return of Donald Trump to the White House, starting January 20, 2025, is now confirmed by his undeniable and complete victory in the American presidential elections of November 6.

Since then, a very palpable feeling of concern has taken hold of European chancelleries and has been widely relayed by the media. Indeed, during his campaign, Donald Trump multiplied demands and threats, particularly to Europeans, and especially in the area of ​​defense.

For some, this geopolitical upheaval will create the necessary context to finally bring about a genuine European coordinated defence initiative, both from a military and industrial point of view, a position long supported by Emmanuel Macron.

In reality, however, we see that the attitude of some European heads of state, and not the least of them, is moving in a completely different direction, very far from these objectives.

So, will Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office be the long-awaited trigger for the emergence of an autonomous and independent Europe in terms of defence, or, on the contrary, will it irrevocably bury this hope held by certain European leaders?

Donald Trump's threats to Europeans and NATO during the US presidential campaign

It must be said that during this campaign, Donald Trump has repeatedly called into question the historic commitments of the United States to Europe and its NATO allies. Thus, from the beginning of the campaign, the Republican candidate had oriented his international policy in three directions: the end of American aid to Ukraine, US reserve position vis-à-vis NATO, and the concentration of American military resources to confront China.

Donald Trump campaign
During his campaign, Donald Trump made numerous threats against the United States' partners and allies, particularly against Europe and NATO.

As candidate Trump progressed in the polls, these threats gained importance in Europe, especially as they found a favorable echo, and affirmed support, in the Republican campaign team, and in the positions expressed by certain conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation.

These announcements provoked emotional reactions from some European leaders, leading Donald Trump to level his threats, notably by demanding that Europeans pay " their fair share", to assume their defense within NATO.

Regarding Ukraine, the discourse has also evolved, from pure abandonment to the promise to end this war through direct negotiations with Vladimir Putin, in just 24 hours.

As for the fair participation expected by Donald Trump in order not to put himself in NATO reserve, it is now greater than or equal to 3% of the GDP, while the Europeans barely reach 1.97% on average, in 2024, with very significant variations, depending on the distance of the country from Russian borders.

Far from being neglected by the American political class, these threats have led the Senate to impose, as part of the Pentagon's 2024 finance law, the vote on a law strictly framing the possibilities offered to the American president to leave NATO, requiring in particular six months' notice and a vote ofa two-thirds majority of the Senate, in favour of this decision, so that it can be implemented.

US Senate
The Senate has passed a bill in 2023, as part of the Pentagon 2024 budget bill, requiring the US president to obtain a 2/3 majority in the Senate to be able to force the US out of NATO. However, the US president remains the sole arbiter regarding the involvement of the United States in the collective defense of the alliance.

There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!

Metadefense Logo 93x93 2

The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)


12 Comments

  1. The European approach is based on the certainty or doubt of the will of the USA to project itself into Europe in the event of a conflict with one of the NATO countries, in short the activation of Article 5. The other point concerns the capacity to use the atomic bomb, where there is a big doubt concerning the United States. France considers that doubt predominates and that the existence of a European army will be able to protect the continent, it must be remembered that the EU is the 2nd world economic power with 22% of the GDP, some must understand that we are stronger united than isolated.

  2. A major factor that will work against France is the state of its public finances. We are barely managing to hold the line of the LPM 24-30 (and there are already beginning to be attempts at trimming), which already contains renunciations of capabilities such as the Leclerc tank. So unless there is a major paradigm shift in what we hope to be able to do with our armies, things are looking bad.

  3. La France Insoumise (LFI), in its program and positions, defends a national defense policy centered on the strategic independence of France. Its program instead emphasizes the major orientations and principles to achieve this independence.

    Exit from NATO: LFI proposes leaving NATO's integrated command to guarantee total strategic autonomy. It thus wishes to reduce the influence of the United States in French military decisions.

    Investment in national defense capabilities: LFI wants to strengthen French defense capabilities by favoring French and European industries and technologies, to limit dependence on foreign equipment.

    Nuclear deterrence: LFI wishes to maintain nuclear deterrence as a pillar of strategic independence, while promoting global disarmament.

    Redeployment of military forces: La France Insoumise supports a reorientation of military interventions outside those based on legitimate international agreements (such as the UN). It defends a less interventionist approach than the current line.
    LFI wants to reallocate part of military spending towards the modernization of French equipment and towards national protection missions.

    LFI favours a strategy of military independence from alliances dominated by the great powers, particularly the United States, and wishes to reinvest in French defence industries and technologies. The proposed budget would depend on the reallocation of resources in the context of a partial exit from NATO and an unjustified reduction in external interventions.

    Anything to say against?

    1
    4
      • I understand your remark, all the more so since initially, this was my first reaction as well.
        However, I let these messages be published. Why?
        Because, in itself, it is linked to the subject, on the one hand
        And on the other hand, because I believe that we cannot blame the political class, as a whole, for its lack of interest in geopolitical and defense issues, and for filtering the messages that expose each person's programs.
        Personally, I prefer to see LFI present its program in this area, rather than proposing a tax credit on pets (and yet, I have 8 dogs and 10 cats, I won't tell you the jackpot!!)
        On the other hand, it is imperative that the exchanges remain measured and respectful. Otherwise, things will quickly turn into sausages.

  4. To put things and characters in place in this impossible debate on a European defense and the Care Bear alternatives.
    All-round defense (Charles de Gaulle)
    Jean-Luc Mélenchon, in a different geopolitical context, shares this ideal of a sovereign and independent France in its decisions. He advocates a policy of non-alignment that recalls the Gaullist spirit of independence, insisting on the idea that France must be able to position itself freely in the international arena.

    In Mélenchon's speeches, this independence is expressed as:

    The desire to leave NATO or at least to distance itself from it, to avoid France being constrained by the strategic choices of the United States.

    The idea of ​​an independent European defence, which would allow European nations to take responsibility for their security without having to systematically resort to NATO.

    The defense of French sovereignty in international positions, whether on economic, ecological or military issues.

    All-out defense!
    He does not exactly take up the concept of all-out defence, he defends a strategic line which remains coherent with the affirmation of an independent and purely French policy, close to the spirit of Gaullism, adapted to contemporary issues.
    It's up to you to approve it or we
    For me, it's yes.

    • It's like everything... You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you don't put some numbers in front of them, it's just hot air.
      What budget? What format? And how to finance it?
      These three points define the available means, therefore the operational contract, and the political options which would be available to the country.
      Until he gives precise answers to these questions, it is of absolutely no interest.
      Moreover, de Gaulle was strictly never "non-aligned". The Mirage IV, the S2s of the Plateau de l'Albion and the 6 SNLE class redoutable, were all aimed at the Soviet Union, just as Soviet missiles aimed at France. The French armies were trained to fight the Warsaw Pact in Germany, alongside the United States and NATO.
      He firmly kept France within the Western bloc and never renounced its alliances, notably with the United States, Great Britain, West Germany and the entire Atlantic alliance.
      He simply took France out of NATO's integrated command and made the necessary efforts so that the country could "choose its wars and win them", without ever withdrawing the French armies in the face of the Soviet threat.

      • Not necessarily a pipe dream, but at least 3 to 3.5% of GDP would be needed to properly finance such ambitions. This raises the question of financing and its sustainability model. And as long as there is no answer to this, it has no materiality.
        Afterwards, if LFI defends a model with the preservation of French strategic autonomy, and says it is ready to be constructive in articulating its financing, well so much the better. I prefer that to an ultra anti-militarist left that constantly opposes defense spending and social spending. No?

  5. Scholtz's position is evolving "rapidly" and not in a European direction, such as an immediate public abandonment of Ukraine.

    Mr Araud (former ambassador of France to the US) interviewed on LCI yesterday: Dimitri Medvedev has just declared "after having called DT all the names 15 days ago... the European leaders are rushing to Florida to prostrate themselves and "lick the..." of DT"

    Araud: this gentleman is very rude but he is fundamentally right

To learn more

Last comments

Most recent articles