Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
How Europe might respond to Trump's tariffs
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm, Sweden.
What's going to be the reaction to the Trump trade war against Europe but also against the rest of the world?
Well, it was worse than expected. What you will hear coming out of Brussels is strong words, but also saying, "Well, let's try and see if we can mitigate, if we can negotiate, if we can have some changes in this." That's going to take some time. Not much hope that that will produce anything. But anyhow, the attempt will be made. And then I would expect fairly strong European countermeasures.
But then, I think the global impact of it is really astonishing. Key US allies and partners in Asia have been hit much harder, even harder than Europe. So, we see the US in terms of economy retreating from the world, and trying to build its own small fortress there behind its oceans. For us, Europeans, the conclusion must be to do the opposite, to reach out to the world. 87% of global imports are not in the US. Two thirds of the growth of the global economy is going to be in Asia-Pacific in the years to come. So, Europe, well, US is doing its own thing, can't do very much about that. But we must be even more strategic, offensive, forward-looking in reaching out to the rest of the world. Develop and preserve as much as we can of an open global trading system. That is the way to prosperity in the future.
The end of the transatlantic relationship as we know it
Donald Trump’s second term is having considerably more impact on the global stage than his first. Trump may have been a largely transactional president last time around, when he was more constrained at home and faced relatively more powerful counterparts abroad. But the first two months of Trump 2.0 have shattered the illusion of continuity. No American ally faces a ruder awakening than Europe, whose relationship with the United States is now fundamentally damaged.
Core partners in Asia like Japan, South Korea, India, as well as Australia worry about being hit with tariffs and will do what they can to defuse conflict, but they also know their geostrategic position vis-à-vis China means Trump can’t afford to alienate them entirely. Accordingly, their relations with Washington should remain comparatively stable over the next four years.
America’s largest trade partners, Mexico and Canada, are facing more significant trade pressures from the Trump administration, but the imbalance of power is such that they have no credible strategy to push back. Everyone understands they’ll have to accept Trump’s terms eventually; the only question is whether capitulation comes before or after a costly fight. Riding an 85% job approval, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has enough domestic political space to yield to Trump’s demands to keep Mexico in his good graces, as she is already doing. By contrast, Canadian leaders have a political incentive to put up a bigger fight because Trump’s threats toward Canada’s economy and sovereignty have sharply inflamed nationalist sentiment north of the border in the run-up to the April 28 elections. However, I expect Ottawa will quietly fold shortly after the vote to ensure that ongoing relations with the US remain functional.
Most US allies have no choice but to absorb Trump’s demands and hope for a reset after he’s gone. But Europe is different. It possesses both the collective heft to resist Trump’s demands and the existential imperative to do so.
Three structural forces render the transatlantic rupture permanent.
First, the European Union has the trade competency and market size to punch back against the Trump administration’s aggressive tariff blitz. Unlike most other US trading partners who lack the economic leverage to go toe-to-toe against Washington and have little choice but to fold under pressure, Brussels’ defiance ensures a protracted trade war with no easy resolution.
Second, most Europeans view the Trump administration’s unilateral pursuit of rapprochement with Russia as a direct threat to their national security. While President Trump would still like to end the war in Ukraine as he promised on the campaign trail, he is prepared to do so on the Kremlin’s terms – and he’s even more interested in business deals with Moscow. He won’t be deterred by a collapse of the Ukraine peace talks, even though it’s Vladimir Putin who’s shown no interest in softening his maximalist demands. Nor will Trump care that the Europeans stridently oppose US normalization with their principal enemy. After all, the United States is protected by two oceans from Putin’s army, and Trump’s embrace of Euroskeptic movements reveals their shared aim: a fragmented and weakened Europe that is easier to dominate.
The president’s rhetoric – echoed by the Signal-gate private texts, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Vice President JD Vance’s Munich speech, and so many other pieces of evidence – makes clear that the current administration sees Europeans not as allies but as “pathetic freeloaders” who shouldn’t be “bailed out” as a matter of principle. Even if Washington begrudgingly agrees to provide them with transactional security, Europeans now realize that relying on a hostile US for survival is strategic suicide.
Which brings us to the third and final driver of the definitive US-Europe break: common values … or lack thereof. From free trade and collective security to territorial integrity and the rule of law, Europe’s foundational principles are now anathema to Trump’s America. Just look at Trump’s repeated threats to annex Greenland, to say nothing of his willingness to recognize illegally annexed Ukrainian territories as Russian and support Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza. For an EU built from the ashes of World War II, it's hard to compromise with a worldview in which borders are mere suggestions and might makes right.
After years of complacency, European leaders seem to have finally gotten the message that the United States under Trump is not just an unreliable friend but an actively hostile power. They understand they need to drastically increase Europe’s sovereign military, technological, and economic capabilities – not just to survive without America but also to defend their borders, economies, and democracies against it. Whether they can muster the political mettle to act on this realization, however, is Europe’s greatest test since 1945.
Recent moves – Germany’s historic debt brake reform and Brussels’ fiscal and financial maneuvers to boost defense spending – hint at urgency. Yet half measures won’t suffice. If Europeans refuse to commit troops to guarantee Ukraine’s post-ceasefire security absent an American backstop and continue to balk at seizing Russia’s frozen assets and overriding Hungary’s veto, it will confirm my view that the bloc lacks the nerve to survive in a jungle-ruled world where Trump and Putin refuse to play by any rules.
The irony is that Europe has the resources and capacity to stand up for itself, its values, and its fellow Europeans. What’s missing is the collective courage to act like it’s 1938, not 1989. For Ukraine’s sake and its own, that needs to change.
If Trump's foreign policy pushes allies away, can the US go it alone?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Marco Rubio heading to Saudi Arabia to talk with the Ukrainians. That's clearly the most important of a lot of moving parts geopolitically in the world right now. I say that because so much of what the Americans decide to do and not do with the Ukrainians is going to have massive impact on the transatlantic relationship, on NATO, on US-Europe relations, and on the nature of what has been the most important collective security arrangement in the world and is now experiencing crisis. It's very clear that the Ukrainians, as Trump says, lack the cards. And so the outcome is going to be determined largely by countries outside of Ukraine, not just the willingness and the capacity of the Ukrainians themselves to continue to fight. The United States, on the one hand, is pushing the Europeans to do a lot more. A lot more in terms of providing economic support, providing military support, and having a security backstop for a post-ceasefire environment that the Americans are not prepared to participate in.
Now, if all of that happens, and of course that's a big if, but certainly the Europeans are moving in that direction, then the interesting point is the Americans aren't going to determine the outcome. In the sense that the ultimate ceasefire terms will be driven not by the United States, who's basically saying, "We're washing our hands of it." But instead by the Europeans and the Ukrainians, in concert with Russia. And first of all, that's analogous to what's been happening in the Middle East. Everybody remembers that Trump said, "We're going to own Gaza and all the Palestinians are going to leave," and of course, that's not where we're heading. And the eventual outcome will be determined overwhelmingly by the countries that are prepared to spend the actual money and provide the security and figure out the politics. And that means the Arab States, that means Egypt and Jordan, it means Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and it means the potential for blocking by Israel.
That's the environment that we are increasingly going to be seeing on the ground in Ukraine. That the Europeans are going to be doing the driving. The Ukrainians are going to have to align with that and the blocking potentially by Russia. The big difference, of course, is that in the case of Ukraine, the United States is also very interested in doing a deal with Russia over the head of the Ukrainians and the Europeans. There's no equivalent in the Middle East at all. And here, the reason it's so important is because the ability of the Ukrainians to continue to engage in their willingness with the US and Europe together will determine in large part whether a deal between the US and Russia involves a ceasefire with Ukraine or doesn't. If Trump can say, "Hey, the reason we didn't get a deal and the reason they're still fighting is because Ukraine refuses to be a part of it," then a deal with Russia is actually much easier to get to by Trump. Because it involves just re-engagement diplomatically, investment by the US and Russia, joint projects, reopening of arms control conversations, and doesn't involve a Ukraine ceasefire.
Trump has said, "Not only does Ukraine not have cards, but Russia doesn't have cards." Of course, the reality is that if the Russians are willing to do the fighting for a longer period of time, and the Americans don't care and the Europeans can't stand up, then the Russians are the ones with the cards. That is where we are heading. And if the Americans are prepared to do a deal with the Russians irrespective of what happens on the ground in Ukraine, and that is being tested very much over the coming days, that's perhaps the most important outcome of what we see from the US-Ukrainian talks in Saudi Arabia, then the transatlantic relationship is in a lot more trouble than it is right now.
So I think those are the pieces that we're talking about here. It is very clear that the Americans see alliances and see allies as expendable, that it's not that important for the Americans to treat allies with respect. If they're smaller, if they're less powerful, you can do whatever you want. And we saw that with Elon Musk beating up on Poland and the Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, someone I've been actually friends with for a very long time, and I think that's not a smart way to conduct business. Poland's been a steadfast ally, they're spending upwards of 4% of their GDP on defense, heading towards 5% going forward. They've housed millions of Ukrainian refugees. They've done far more on the ground in Ukraine per capita than the Americans have on pretty much every front. And also, by the way, there are a lot of Polish Americans that vote, and some of them vote Republican. Far more important than the Ukrainian vote, for example, and that seems to matter too, but maybe not to Elon.
I think that these sorts of insults are unnecessary, and they damage American allies. But I think the Trump administration's perspective is as long as the US is the most powerful country in the world, that America alone is stronger than America with friends, and it's probably the area of greatest geopolitical disagreement that I have with this administration. But we will see how it plays out. I certainly agree that there will be a lot of wins that we will continue to see, because less powerful countries do not want to get into a big fight with the United States. But long-term, I think this is going to play out badly. And I particularly think that's true in the transatlantic relationship where permanent damage is being done irrespective of what happens after Trump. Anyway, a lot to talk about, a lot of moving pieces. We'll talk real soon, and that's it from me.
Is the US-Europe alliance permanently damaged?
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm, Sweden.
Is the transatlantic relationship permanently damaged by what we have seen during the last 10 days or so?
Well, there is no question that the last 10 days or so have been the worst by far for the transatlantic relationship in, well, modern recorded history. You can go through all of the details if you want. It started with the shameful vote in the UN General Assembly on the same day that was three years after the war of aggression that Russia started, where the United States turned around, lined up with Russia, and with primarily a bunch of countries that you would not normally like to be seen in the company of, in order to try to defeat the Europeans, and defeat the Ukrainians, and defeat the Japanese, and defeat the Australians, defeat all of the friends who have criticized the Russians.
It was truly shameful. It was defeated, needless to say, but it left deep marks there. And then it was downhill from there, with that particular week ending with the ambush in the Oval Office, with all of the details associated with that, with sort of a childish dispute about dress codes, and respect for whatever, and total disregard for the important issues that are at stake at the moment. And to that was added, the vice president seriously insulting the allies, primarily the British and the French, and then cutting of aid to Ukraine, including intelligence cooperation, which is unheard of, unheard of when it comes to these particular issues.
So, is damage permanent? Well, one would hope that... well, hope springs eternal, that there would be a way back. But this will be remembered for a long time to come. And the reaction in Europe, well, you have to keep a straight face if you are a political leader. And they do, they hope for the best, but they're increasingly preparing for the worst. What we might be heading into is Mr. Trump, President Trump lining up with President Putin in a deal that is essentially on Russia's term over Ukraine, then trying to force Ukraine into that particular deal, a repetition of Munich 1938.
Will that work? I think it's unlikely to work because the Ukrainians are determined to stand up for their country. And they have the support of the Europeans. Czechoslovakia in 1938 didn't have much support. So, whether it will work or not is debatable, but that is the direction in which things are heading at the moment. Can this be stopped or can the trajectory of things be changed? Let's hope. There's a flurry of meetings in Europe. There will be a lot of contacts across the Atlantic. There is a strong support for Ukraine in Europe, but then deep apprehensions of where we are heading. Further four years with President Trump. After that, (possibly) four to eight years with JD Vance. Well, well, there's a lot of thinking that needs to be done on this side of the Atlantic.
U.S. President Joe Biden walks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy during an unannounced visit, in Kyiv, Ukraine.
Can the US keep Europe together?
Just days out from the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, US President Joe Biden is making a splash in Europe. After a surprise stop in Kyiv on Monday, Biden is now in Poland, where he is expected to give a formal address at the Royal Castle gardens in Warsaw on the global state of democracy. He's also set to meet a group of nine eastern European leaders.
Biden’s trip comes amid growing fears in the region of both an imminent military escalation in Ukraine and concern for how long European cohesion on supporting Kyiv will last. This view was reinforced when Poland's Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki recently said: “We must admit that it will be a big challenge to keep the EU member countries enthusiastic.”
Over the past year, there’s been much attention on how a united Europe has served as a crucial punitive force against Russia. But as the war lingers, anxiety is growing about whether deviating interests within Europe could, over time, splinter its war response.
First, what are the differing views within the European camp? Post-Soviet states, like the three Baltic nations, as well as fearful neighbors – like the Scandinavian and Balkan countries – have adopted a hawkish Russia stance. They know what it’s like to live under the fist of an oppressive Soviet state or to be bullied by an expansionist Russia. Crucially, Poland, which has emerged as an anchor for Eastern European unity, recalls all too well how the country was carved up in 1939 between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Fearful of Russia's imperialist aspirations, Warsaw has been channeling its fears by upping its defense budget.
But the view is very different from much of Central and Western Europe — particularly Germany, which, in the post-Cold War years intertwined its economy with Russia’s. The same is true for other EU countries, including Italy and Austria. This economic interdependence has at times slowed some states from adopting the same full-throttled anti-Russia stance as those who feel more directly threatened by Moscow.
“There are many cleavages between Eastern European countries, the Baltic states, and Western European countries,” says Engjellushe Morina, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Eastern Europeans and Baltics have different expectations of European unity because they live right next door to Russia.”
As the war in Ukraine metastasizes, there’s increasing fear among Eastern European states that the rest of Europe, reeling from inflation and other domestic crises (the French right now … ils sont malheureux!), will lose patience with the West’s maximum pressure campaign.
But this would appear to counter a dominant view that Eastern Europe’s clout has grown since the war broke out: “Our voice is now louder and more heard,” Romania’s foreign minister said recently. What’s more, some analysts have credited the bloc’s powerful advocacy with having pushed the Biden administration – followed by European heavyweights – to give Ukraine heavier military equipment.
A divided East. But while Eastern European leaders may have played a more prominent role in leading the charge in recent months – compared, for instance, to 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea – varying priorities impede the bloc from presenting a united front.
Consider that Poland, for its part, abhors the Kremlin and has taken in more Ukrainian refugees than any other country, while Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban, long cozy with Moscow, said this week that he would not break ties with Russia. Serbia is closely aligned with the Kremlin and has not joined NATO, choosing to maintain a neutral defense posture, while Albania, Montenegro, and North Macedonia are NATO members. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has warned that Bosnia and Herzegovina and Moldova are vulnerable to Russian interference.
Another limiting factor is that the Eastern Europeans don’t have the goods. Estonian PM Kaja Kallas acknowledged this recently when she said, “it’s very easy for me to say … ‘Of course, give fighter jets [to Ukraine] but — I don’t have them.” Likewise, while Poland has called for NATO members to send Kyiv fighter jets, it said that its stockpiles are limited and it needs Washington to lead the way. And even when they do have the goods, Europe's eastern flank often can’t send them to third parties without getting the go-ahead from the heavyweights that produced them. This dynamic was highlighted in recent months when Ukraine pushed for the US, the UK, and Germany to send advanced battle tanks, paving the way for other European allies to do the same.
America's job. As the war passes the one-year mark, the endurance of a united Europe on Ukraine will continue to depend on how well the US can keep the group in check. Why? Because no Europeans seem up to the task.
“There are no European leaders to maintain this unity,” Morina says, adding, “we don‘t see any powerful European countries like France or Germany taking the lead.”
Putin aims to draw Belarus into Ukraine war
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics.
What's the mood in the transatlantic relationship?
Well, not bad. Certainly not, but not as good as it should be. There's been or there is a substantial European irritation with a very high level of subsidies that is given to industries in the US, excluding European deliveries of electric vehicles and energy investments and things like that. And that is causing a somewhat of a mini crisis that I hope will be resolved in the next few months. Let's hope for the best.
What is Mr. Putin doing in Minsk, in Belarus these days?
Well, it's fairly obvious that he's trying to press Belarus and Lukashenko in a far more active role in his aggression against Ukraine. He is now looking medium- and long-term at that particular war. He's probably going to make another go for Kyiv when his new army mobilized hundred thousands of people, when his new army is ready, that he needs Belarus on board. That's in all probability, the meaning of his visit to Minsk today.
US President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron
Can Macron woo Biden?
French President Emmanuel Macron is in Washington, DC, for an official state visit, the first world leader given that honor since President Joe Biden moved into the White House nearly two years ago.
Marked by military processions and fancy dinner parties, a state visit is essentially the greatest expression of “friendship” between two countries.
Biden and Macron, both known for public displays of affection, will surely go to great lengths to demonstrate that US-French relations are warmer than ever. But behind the scenes, the two leaders will have to hash out a series of thorny issues.
Macron’s already winning. While Macron is hoping to secure certain material gains, the invitation itself is likely already deemed a win by the French president, who has long been trying to carve out his place as the de facto leader of Europe.
To be sure, the competition isn’t stiff: The leader of a degraded Britain was hardly going to get the star treatment from the White House – nor was German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel’s wildly underwhelming successor.
What’s on the agenda?
Relatively straightforward: Reaffirming the transatlantic alliance and a coordinated Ukraine policy
The US and France have come a long way since Sept. 2021, when Macron briefly withdrew his ambassador from Washington after the AUKUS debacle, where the US froze Paris out of a crucial Asia Pacific security pact with Australia and the UK.
But since then, the US and France – leading the broader European Union – have exhibited a resilient partnership in an effort to isolate Russia and bolster Ukraine. Despite some divergent economic and strategic interests, the EU and US agreed early on to hit the Kremlin with coordinated coercive economic measures, while also presenting a united front on the diplomatic stage. Indeed, Biden and Macron will want to highlight this unity for Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin watching at home.
However, Biden and Macron have at times seemed to offer conflicting visions of an eventual endgame in Ukraine. While Paris previously called for dialogue with Russia to end the war, Biden has mostly reiterated Kyiv’s view that a settlement will only be reached once Russia withdraws from all Ukrainian territory.
Still, what leaders say in public is often very different from admissions made behind closed doors, and this multi-day summit will give Biden and Macron an opportunity to talk candidly about their views of a lingering conflict that has sent the global economy into a tailspin.
What’s harder to fix?
Made in America vs. Buy European
The EU – and France in particular – has made no secret of the fact that it abhors the Inflation Reduction Act, a key component of Biden’s legislative agenda that includes tax breaks for Americans who purchase electric vehicles made from parts manufactured only in North America. Decrying America’s protectionist policies, which he says discriminate against Europe’s robust auto industry, Macron has called for subsidy loopholes for the EU resembling those given to Mexico and Canada.
But Clayton Allen, a US expert at Eurasia Group, says that remains a pipe dream. “There is no room to extend the same exceptions granted to Mexico and Canada without new legislation,” Allen says, adding that “there is no appetite to pass that legislation in the lame duck [session],” or to do so in the next Congress.
Biden, for his part, “has no real wiggle room on the provisions of the IRA itself,” Allen adds.
Indeed, this sticking point has caused Paris to push its own “Buy European” agenda – a move aggressively backed by Berlin – with Macron calling for Europe to pass its own subsidy package to safeguard key industries.
Still, both Macron and Biden will be keen to stave off a transatlantic trade standoff that could deepen the global financial crisis. Rather, Macron will be trying to feel out how the US might respond to reciprocal protectionist measures.
Energy wars. While energy-dependent Europe is bearing the brunt of Western efforts to transition away from Russian energy exports, the US has in fact benefited from the global energy flux. Indeed, in the first half of 2022, the US surpassed Qatar and Australia to become the number one exporter of liquified natural gas, in large part due to the EU and UK having boosted their LNG imports to offset dwindling supplies from Russian pipelines.
With the EU feeling the pain, Macron has called on the Biden administration to pressure US gas companies to lower prices. The White House, for its part, says that its options are limited, noting that increased LNG prices are largely a result of the US Federal Reserve’s efforts to tackle inflation, which have made US exports more expensive for everyone. In reality, there’s little the Biden administration can do: High global demand for LNG is pushing prices up, including domestically. Indeed, some US lawmakers have even called for export limits on US LNG, but the Biden administration isn’t going for it.
Still, Macron isn’t buying it and accuses the White House of a “double standard” on energy and trade policy.
France and the US: et maintenant?
Despite all the tough talk, European – and French – “political preferences will be to maintain transatlantic unity over the Ukraine war and avoid a trade spat with the US,” says Mujtaba Rahman, Europe Managing Director at Eurasia Group. Indeed, Uncle Sam seems to be in a strong bargaining position.
Wolfgang Ischinger: Ukraine made German foreign policy go "out the window"
For Wolfgang Ischinger, former chair of the Munich Security Conference, the state of transatlantic relations is in good shape right now, although whether we'll have the stamina to stay on course is uncertain. In a Global Stage interview with Ian Bremmer, he seems more worried about American war fatigue than the Europeans — although the EU has Viktor Orbán and it's hard for Germany to cut off Russian gas. One lesson Ischinger has learned from the current crisis is that Europe must have America's back on China, especially with Taiwan. And he calls German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's recent foreign policy U-turns as "going out the window."
Ian Bremmer: With my friend Wolfgang Ischinger here at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Wolfgang, so state of transatlantic relations today, from the Davos perspective, what do you think?
Wolfgang Ischinger: Good shape. Better than at any time in recent memory. If we had had a Davos a year ago, we would've been talking about the debacle of Afghanistan, et cetera. We're in good shape now. NATO is essentially on track, the European Union has surprisingly not fallen apart. I think my only concern is if it is correct to assume that this war in Ukraine will drag on for not weeks but months, are we going to be in good shape three, six, nine months down the road? That's my concern. Are we going to have the stamina to stay on course?
Ian Bremmer: Now, question; to the extent that war fatigue is starting to set in over time, and again, I think most people presume this is not ending any time soon.
Wolfgang Ischinger: Exactly.
Ian Bremmer: Does it come first from the Europeans or from the Americans? And why?
Wolfgang Ischinger: Well, let's talk about America for a moment. You guys have elections coming up, midterm elections, and I'm not so certain that the average American voter is going to like the idea of paying higher gas prices and spending more money on foreign expeditions, etc., etc. So I'm worried a little bit about the American commitment longer term. In Europe, I think at the moment we're in good shape, but of course we have these outliers. We have Viktor Orbán.
Ian Bremmer: Hungary.
Wolfgang Ischinger: We have Hungary, and we have a couple of other partners that have specific interests. Germany has its own problem with gas. I wish I could say in six weeks or in 12 weeks, we're going to be able to cut gas imports from Russia. It's hard to do. It's hard to do, and I feel sorry for those in my own government who have to respond to this urgent question from our Ukrainian partners. When are you going to stop financing the Russian war of aggression by continuing to buy this stuff? But then again, it's not going to help if Germany cuts gas imports now. With the obvious, obvious consequence of a significant recession, then of course the commitment by the German wider public for our Ukrainian determination will surely shrink. And whose interest would we serve with that? So this is really a dilemma.
Ian Bremmer: And the Americans and the Europeans have had diversion perspectives for a while on Russia that are now aligning. They've also had some diversion perspectives on China for a while.
Wolfgang Ischinger: Yes. Yeah.
Ian Bremmer: Are they now aligning?
Wolfgang Ischinger: I think there's one lesson we are learning, we Europeans. We cannot ignore that the US is looking at a huge problem, potential problem with China, with the Taiwan issue, etc. And we cannot possibly leave the United States alone in that. In other words, we need to understand that even though this is many thousands of miles away, it is in our interest to get involved. Maybe not militarily, we don't have the capacities militarily, but certainly politically, and we need much closer coordination between Washington, and Brussels, and Berlin and Paris on China.
Ian Bremmer: And Olaf Scholz so far, when you saw that initial speech he gave, the turning point speech he gave, did it reflect for you a new strategic vision for Germany? Is this a new generation for Germany in politics or is it more modest than that?
Wolfgang Ischinger: No. It was a major decision. Look, essential elements of established German foreign policy went up the chimney.
Ian Bremmer: We'd say out the window.
Wolfgang Ischinger: Out the window.
Ian Bremmer: But that sounds more definitive, if it's up the chimney.
Wolfgang Ischinger: Out the window. The idea which about which we had been preaching for many years, the future partnership with Russia; out the window, no longer possible. The idea of a security order for all of Europe, with Russia included; out the window. In other words for no country has this Russian attack against Ukraine produced more sharp cuts and the need for total revision of our foreign policy. The problem for Olaf Scholz is not that he gave the wrong speech. The problem for him is that it's not so clear that all of his followers in his own party agree with his speech-
Ian Bremmer: Social democrats.
Wolfgang Ischinger: And with the consequences of spending a hundred billion extra on defense, and on meeting the 2% defense goal going forward, etc. So, he has to fight this internal political fight, not against the opposition, which supports him, but against his own party.
Ian Bremmer: The Americans have been saying for a long time, how come the Europeans aren't sacrificing the Germans? The Europeans are sacrificing more this time around. There's no question.
Wolfgang Ischinger: Yes. Absolutely.
- The Graphic Truth: The casualties of the Ukraine war - GZERO Media ›
- Enter Olaf — can he keep Germany's traffic light blinking? - GZERO ... ›
- A different Davos amid geopolitical conflicts and security issues ... ›
- Ukraine war dominates Davos discussions - GZERO Media ›
- Can Europe trust the US - or its own nations? Wolfgang Ischinger's ... ›
- Europe's place in tomorrow's world - GZERO Media ›
- The yet-unseen consequences of Russia's war in Ukraine - GZERO Media ›