The Embarrassing Diplomatic Demotion of Europe

When the head of the world’s largest military alliance calls the president of the United States “daddy,” you’d be forgiven for thinking the job is dead on functional independence, let alone the dignity of dependent children.

The remarkable on-stage lesson last summer by Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary-General and former Dutch prime minister, toward US President Donald Trump represents perhaps the most telling moment in Europe’s abrogation of power. Europeans should hope that this represents something less bleak: a search for a new way of doing things in a more efficient world.

When the head of the world’s largest military alliance calls the president of the United States “daddy,” you’d be forgiven for thinking the job is dead on functional independence, let alone the dignity of dependent children.

The remarkable on-stage lesson last summer by Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary-General and former Dutch prime minister, toward US President Donald Trump represents perhaps the most telling moment in Europe’s abrogation of power. Europeans should hope that this represents something less bleak: a search for a new way of doing things in a more efficient world.

There were many moments during the first year of Trump’s second term that could rival those of June, when European NATO members feared that the United States might rebel and abandon the alliance that has kept the West safe for nearly eight decades, absent coordinated love bombing.

That’s why Rutte did what he did, why French President Emmanuel Macron put his hand on Trump’s knee, and why the British royal family did the right thing and courted Trump during his lavish and unprecedented second official visit to the United Kingdom.

Is there more behind these ego rituals? Recent events in the Middle East suggest that Europe’s demotion is real.

Trump made several criticisms of European leaders during his victory tour in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, hours after Hamas released 20 Israeli hostages as part of a ceasefire agreement with Israel. He invited UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the podium, before turning away from him and returning him to the ranks of the groups. He described Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as “beautiful” and made jokes at the expense of Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was not worth mentioning, which can be interpreted positively or negatively.

If you’re being generous, you might describe Trump’s statements as emotional. In both cases, they emphasized that what Trump asks for, Trump gets. If the Nobel Peace Prize is eventually awarded to him, he will have achieved the maximum adulation he craves. No other gifts come close, although there are plenty of business deals to be made yet.

So how do the likes of Starmer, Macron and Mers respond best? The most obvious answer is sangfroid, which they already offer. They acknowledge, privately if not publicly, that they will probably receive no more attention or favors from the White House than the leaders of other middle powers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.

It did not go unnoticed that Trump lavished praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, his Egyptian counterpart and co-host of the Gaza peace summit. He told his “friend” Sisi that “the United States was with him all the way” in suppressing unrest (aka dissent), saying, “I ask about crime, and they almost don’t know what I’m talking about.”

In this transactional era, Trump is looking for like-minded souls, and not just on foreign policy. I was struck while recently listening to a radio interview with Mathias Döpfner, Chairman and CEO of Axel Springer SE. Döpfner may be enemy number one of a certain type of liberal in Germany (a badge he wears with pride); He’s also very well connected among a certain type of conservative in Washington.

The gist of his argument is that Europe is losing relevance because of its total approach to policy making. It is bureaucratic, favors regulation over innovation, and is nowhere to be seen in technology, especially artificial intelligence. Moreover, it is obsessed with culture wars, has no respect for freedom of expression, and is endemically anti-Semitic.

I have responded strongly to the last three criticisms, but now is not the time to elaborate on them in depth. But I found myself agreeing, or at least not instinctively disagreeing, with the first three. For this reason, the Trump administration has given wide leeway to multilateral institutions, especially the European Union. She sees no reason to go through all the difficulties of working with 27 countries and their complex bureaucracies. The nation-state, or rather the personal relationship with the individual in charge, has returned.

Europe has been left to do what it can where it can. Like students raising their hands in the classroom, countries are vying to fulfill certain tasks in Trump’s grand 20-point plan for Middle East peace. The British claim that their experience with Northern Ireland gives them a unique role in peacebuilding, while the French and Germans have proposed taking the lead in the Gaza reconstruction process.

The region where the Europeans believed they exercised the greatest influence, even if it was fragile and limited, was Ukraine. The pledge (if applied differently and vaguely) to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP appears to have appeased Trump.

Trump’s frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s failure to give in to his pleas at their summit in Alaska made him realize that achieving peace in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is much more difficult. It seemed to give hope to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and to the Europeans, that he had finally begun to understand their position.

Then came the ambush of Zelensky last Friday at the White House, his apparent embrace of Putin’s positions and the announcement of a US-Russian summit in, of all places, Hungary, the anomalous country in the European Union that boasts of its friendly relationship with the Kremlin. Trump may continue to meander, but the signs are not good. In this struggle, too, he convinced himself that only he could conjure some form of solution by the sheer force of his personality.

There are limits: Perhaps the most fanciful statements made earlier this year — regarding control of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal — have been shelved. Under current circumstances, this is no easy feat. While backing down is possible, it must be done with determination and very politely.

Only occasionally does a leader express explicit defiance, such as Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who refuses to increase defense spending to anything close to US demands and who publicly embraces a more open approach to immigration. Sanchez has so far stood firm against Trump’s tariff threats, so none have been imposed yet.

After Carney backed away from the ridiculous idea of ​​Canada becoming America’s 51st state, he had to endure harsh blows and increased tariffs. But his resolve did not diminish. As for France and the United Kingdom, their decision to recognize the state of Palestine angered the Israeli government, but aside from the harsh rhetoric from members of the administration, Trump’s own reaction was noticeably muted. Perhaps here lies a clue. Pick your battles, avoid gross insults, hold your nerve, and be prepared for the long haul.

Until recently, one of the conventional wisdom in European chancelleries was that everything would blow up, and that Trump would lose interest in remaking the world in his image. But this is no longer the prevailing opinion. Not only has Trump lost interest, he appears to have successfully future-proofed MAGA. From US Vice President J.D. Vance on down, the movement is here to stay, and America’s post-democratic approach to power seems unchangeable.

Long gone are the days when the next US president would seek out London, Paris, or Berlin as his first port of call and pledge eternal goodwill.