By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
Whatever one may think about the old/new American president, Donald Trump, it is undeniable that he keeps his pre-election promises. He began implementing them intensively from the very start of his term. This applies both to domestic policies and to international relations. His policies are highly transparent, and his behaviour is well known, so his actions should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Of course, this does not mean that one must agree with the actions of his administration. Some of them are quite problematic, particularly regarding its approach to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its strategy for ending the military conflict. This is not just about Trump’s various verbal escapades, where he sometimes appears harsher toward allies than adversaries. This was evident, for example, during the White House press conference following his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where he, alongside his Vice President JD Vance, publicly rebuked Zelensky for his alleged disrespect toward Americans (although it must be said that Zelensky needlessly initiated a verbal confrontation).
The real issue lies in the interpretation of the situation itself. Trump completely avoids assigning responsibility for the war, even though it is undeniably Russia’s fault. Taking a so-called neutral stance implicitly equates the victim with the aggressor. The war can only end by stopping the latter – by forcing Russia to realise that continuing the war is not in its interest. Under no circumstances should it be encouraged. Yet, with statements and actions like these, the American president and his team – whether intentionally or not – are doing just that.
Trump claims he wants to end the military conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible and negotiate a peace agreement to “take this crisis off the table” so he can focus on geopolitical issues he considers more important for U.S. interests, primarily relations with China – the country he sees as America’s main competitor, or even threat. At first glance, this strategy may seem logical, but it is short-sighted. Not every quick and simple solution is a good one. If a peace agreement were reached in a way that benefited Russia at Ukraine’s expense, it would not improve security conditions in Europe. On the contrary, it would embolden Putin to launch further attacks on neighbouring countries. More importantly, it would signal to China – the leading global autocratic power – that aggression can go unpunished, potentially encouraging it to attempt a violent annexation of Taiwan. This kind of “pacifism”, as hinted at by the current U.S. administration, would, in the medium term, significantly harm America itself by weakening its global position.
It is high time for Europe to achieve defence and security independence – to “stand on its own feet”. Ironically, Trump’s election and his “America First” approach have played a crucial role in making European political leaders finally realise this necessity. For too long, Europeans have relied on American military power while hypocritically looking down on the U.S. and accusing it of imperialism whenever it intervened in global conflicts.
This must come to an end. It is absurd that the European Union fears Russian threats when, economically speaking, Russia is a dwarf compared to the EU. Europe has more than enough resources to develop an effective, technologically advanced military capable of ensuring its own security. Financing such efforts should not be an issue either – defence spending could be covered by reallocating funds currently dedicated to the “green transition” and the spread of woke ideologies. This alone may not be sufficient, but it would certainly be a good start.
