The first weeks of the Trump administration have been an exercise in harsh self-reflection for Europe. The European powers have realized their own weakness. Worse, they feel a deepened sense of dependence on the United States. Before Trump took office, these tensions were overshadowed by the United States’s embrace of Europe, even though Joe Biden took a more condescending attitude toward transatlantic alliances and their institutions than previous administrations. Now the European governments find themselves plunged into the bitter contempt of Trumpist expansionism. They are receiving a large dose of the Greek historian Thucydides’ maxim: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” — an axiom that has come to represent the reactionary cynicism of the capitalist ecosystem.
Certain aspects of the message that the new U.S. government presented at the Munich Security Conference — the first of the “Trump 2.0” era — were predictable. The European governments — which spearheaded a nefarious militarist race as part of a coordinated logistical intervention with the United States in Ukraine, instrumentalizing for exploitative ends the Ukrainian populations’ just repudiation of Russia’s reactionary military invasion — knew that Trump would seek to unload the burden of continental defense on their shoulders. Vice President J.D. Vance announced in no uncertain terms that the United States’ presence would not last forever in Europe.
Meanwhile, the White House’s envoys have illuminated European submission in a new way. The Trump Doctrine is not limited to instating ideologically-aligned state officials in the domestic sphere; it also includes the creation of a “Europe for Trumpists.” According to Vance:
The threat that I worry most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.
The repression of workers’ movements, floods of austerity measures and budget cuts, the criminalization of those who defend Palestine against Israel’s Zionist terrorism — all these “values” are very much present in the governments of Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Olaf Scholz, and company. But for Vance, all this must be accompanied by another, fundamental element: complete adherence to Donald Trump’s worldview. Vance berated the European nations for a failure to understand that it is Washington that calls the shots, while at the same time offering a hand out to those who choose to come to the table.
A week before the German elections, Vance took advantage of the stage in Munich to continue Elon Musk’s campaigning for the European Far Right, criticizing the “marginalization of forces deemed extremist,” such as the neo-Nazi AfD (Alternative for Germany). Musk virtually took part in an AfD rally in Berlin and wrote that “only the AfD can save Germany.” Vance followed the lead of the billionaire owner of Tesla. The only thing missing was another “Roman salute.”
As we have previously written, Trump has escalated a xenophobic campaign of deportations against immigrants that was not only a hallmark of his previous term, but of Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s administrations as well. With a discourse of terror typical of Trumpism, Trump has ordered a ramping up of arrests, incarcerations, and deportations previously sponsored by the Democratic Party. The persecution of young people and workers who demonstrated in the United States against the Biden-Harris administration’s bloodthirsty support for Netanyahu and Israel’s genocide in Gaza is also key for Trump, who warns of repercussions for “internal enemies.” Similar policies are part of the repertoire of European administrations. Let’s not forget the persecution of pro-Palestinian activists in France by Macron, who is bringing labor movement figures like our comrade Anasse Kazib to trial; or the arrests of dozens of protesters by Keir Starmer’s Labour Party in London. Further, the Zeitenwende plan for militarization by the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) has encouraged the racism and nationalism of the German Far Right. Despite everything, however, every government has its preferences. With the rise of the Far Right, fueled by the xenophobic and pro-Zionist policies of Europe’s largest imperialist powers, Trump has been emboldened to make their way easier.
Vance criticized the decision of Romania’s constitutional court to annul the elections that led to the victory of pro-Russian ultranationalist Calin Georgescu, as well as the conviction of a protester opposed to women’s right to abortion and the exclusion of AfD politicians from the Munich Security Conference itself. “What has seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for. What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important?” Vance told the representatives of Europe’s capitalist governments. The tension prompted the German Chancellor to respond critically to Vance’s provocation. “We are also fighting for your right to be against us,” said German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius in response to Vance’s speech. Analyst Thomas Latschan laments:
The longer the U.S. vice president’s speech went on, the clearer it became that the transatlantic disagreement is no longer “just” about the world’s crisis zones, Ukraine, the Middle East, or the fair sharing of the burden. The rift between the U.S. and its European partners is much more fundamental. For decades, the much-vaunted “community of values” was the ideological glue that held the Western world together. NATO and EU allies could always confidently rely on the defense of democracy, free speech and the rule of law. Now though, these terms are being hijacked, reinterpreted and redefined by elements of the political elite — and not only in the U.S. The rift has also opened up within the transatlantic alliance.
In contrast, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi took to the stage with a much more conciliatory tone. Wang said that he considered Europe and China to be “partners, not rivals.” China, he said, “has always seen in Europe an important pole in the multipolar world.” The Chinese representative emphasized the need to “preserve the UN-led international system” and said that Europe had a “key role” to play in the peace process in Ukraine. This is Xi Jinping’s official policy: to take advantage of the fissures caused by Trump in order to make the Chinese capitalist state emerge as the representative of neoliberal globalization and the stability of trade relations with the allies the United States is now attacking.
Trump made his intentions clear about reducing Europe’s weight in his plans days before the Munich Conference. He had already declared the imposition of reciprocal tariffs against all nations that applied them to products exported by the United States, a measure that particularly affects Germany, whose automobile industry would be seriously shaken at a time of drastic economic crisis (Volkswagen has said it will close three of its ten production plants in Germany). This takes place in a country plunged into recession on the eve of an election tinged by the crisis of state authority.
The main event in recent days, however, is Trump’s posture toward Ukraine. In a “long and highly productive” liaison with Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin, Trump announced that he was seeking an “immediate end” to the Ukraine War on the basis of unilateral negotiations between the United States and Russia. He emphasized the “strengths of our respective nations, and the great benefit that we will someday have in working together” on issues such as “Ukraine, the Middle East, Energy, Artificial Intelligence, the power of the Dollar, and various other subjects.” His conduct is a complete reversal of that of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
Trump has not made it clear what he sees as Russia’s possible assistance in the Middle East. Perhaps he wants to negotiate the structuring of a new government in Syria. Perhaps he is seeking support for the racist project of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in Gaza and its displacement to neighboring countries in order to convert the coastal strip destroyed by Zionist terrorism into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Nor is it clear whether U.S. policy is to seduce Putin in order to distance him from Beijing and Xi Jinping’s economic and political influence, an objective that is difficult to achieve given the rapprochement between China and Russia. What was clear, however, was that Trump is sidelining Europe in the discussions about the future of the conflict, neglecting the very participation of NATO-allied powers in Europe in talks about the clauses of a vague ceasefire agreement.
In fact, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Secretary of Defense, has questioned two guidelines hitherto considered unshakeable for Europe’s warmongering position. In an interview, he declared that the Ukrainian government of Volodymyr Zelenskyy could have no illusions about recovering militarily the territory incorporated by Russia, be it the Crimean peninsula seized in 2014, or the eastern Donbass region, taken in the invasion of 2022. He also denied any possibility that Ukraine’s security guarantee in a ceasefire agreement would mean its incorporation into NATO. He said that any guarantee “must be backed by capable European and non-European troops […] there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,” and that these troops could not be part of any NATO mission. In the course of the Munich Conference, theUnited States asked European countries to submit detailed proposals on the armaments, peacekeeping troops, and security arrangements they could provide to Ukraine as part of any guarantee to end the war with Russia.
This is a humiliation for the European governments that have been quick to accept the militaristic orientation of the United States towards the eastern part of the continent. It is a direct insult to Ukraine, whose government is haggling over how to hand over the country’s mineral wealth — the famous rare earth minerals that are used to make electric batteries and semiconductors — that are demanded by Trump in exchange for the United States’ continued logistical support. The negotiations will probably go ahead without Europe’s consent. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held talks at the Munich Conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov ahead of high-level talks between Washington and Moscow on February 18 in Saudi Arabia. According to state department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, Rubio “reaffirmed President Trump’s commitment to finding an end to the conflict in Ukraine. In addition, they discussed the opportunity to potentially work together on a number of other bilateral issues.” They also agreed to create “a line of communication to solve the problems in the US-Russia relationship in the interests of removing the unilateral barriers to mutually beneficial trade, economic, and investment co-operation inherited from the previous administration.” According to the Financial Times, this is an apparent indication that the United States is prepared to reverse sanctions against Moscow.
This is an almost complete reversal of Biden’s policy, which was used by the United States as a means of subjecting Europe to its militaristic orientation that aimed to weaken Russia without the use of U.S. troops or soldiers on the ground. The strategic objective was to preserve the unipolar world order dominated by the United States by weakening China’s main ally in the attempt to rewrite the geopolitical order. Although he shares the first part of the formula, Trump has a different attitude towards Russia and Putin, whom he praised as a “genius” after the invasion in February 2022. This inclines Washington’s policy towards a more negotiated exit than the Democratic Party had planned, as well as towards attempts to seduce the Russian government with prospects of “working together in multiple areas” alongside the White House — something that should heighten Beijing’s concerns.
In any case, if Russia is finding it very difficult to conquer Ukrainian territory by force, neither has Democratic warmongering shown any success in weakening a Russia aided by China and Iran. Long before the three-year conflict, it was clear that Kiev could not win the war, and Zelenskyy himself confessed as much. Richard Haas of Foreign Affairs prepared the ground for Trump’s political U-turn on the Ukrainian War by questioning the previous definition of what a “triumph” in the conflict would mean:
If pressed, most would indeed probably define winning in a way similar to how Kyiv defines it, including in its most recent “victory plan”: ousting Russian troops from the entirety of Ukraine’s territory, Crimea included, and reestablishing control over its 1991 borders. There is good reason for adopting this definition. The most basic, if not always honored, norm of international order—one that has endured for some 400 years—is that borders are to be respected. Territory is not to be acquired through the threat or use of armed force. This was one of the main reasons why the United States and other countries rallied to defend South Korea in 1950 and Kuwait in 1990.
Yet although this definition is desirable, it is ultimately unworkable. In principle, Ukraine could liberate its lost territory if the United States and its European partners intervened with forces of their own. But this would require jettisoning the indirect strategy they chose in 2022. It would come at great human, military, and economic cost. And it would introduce far greater risk, as it would mean war between NATO and nuclear-armed Russia. For this reason, such a policy will not be adopted.
In the wake of Trump’s words, analysts have sought to reconcile themselves with reality, and have begun to paint an optimistic picture of a policy they had previously rejected. According to Lawrence Freedman:
Many in Ukraine would welcome a ceasefire. The country is tired and bruised from almost three years of war and could use a respite to build up its armed forces and revive its economy. A ceasefire does not require, as the Russians expect, that it abandon hopes of recovering its lost territory forever. Nor have the Americans suggested that Ukraine should accede to the rest of Moscow’s demands — that it concede yet more territory to Russia, disarm its forces and change its regime and constitution. Putin is no doubt delighted to be treated with respect by Trump. But he is only being offered a draw when he still wants a victory. […] So as the negotiating teams start to engage, Putin has to work out whether he can walk away from his maximalist demands. Perhaps he could agree to a ceasefire but only with a strict negotiating timetable for a final settlement and some early relief on sanctions; maybe he could concede Ukraine EU membership. But if Ukraine stays independent and armed, he will have failed. Should Putin end up being blamed for the failure of this big push for peace, he might find that even Trump is ready to step up support for Kyiv and impose more sanctions on Russia.
No scenario can be dismissed in this conflict, and a ceasefire negotiation headed by interlocutors as fickle as Trump and Putin is far from simple. The general outlines of a ceasefire pact, moreover, have been drawn up for some time, and are very similar to the armistice that stopped the Korean War in 1953. But what seems certain is that Europe’s position is weakening considerably. Trump is attempting to complete the subordination of the European continent that was accelerated in the Biden administration with diplomatic blows. The politics of European capitalism has no pilot and is forcibly handing the helm over to Trump, beyond the outbursts of indignation in the Elysée Palace.
The combination of all these critical factors — and the fact that, whatever happens in Ukraine, it is Europeans who will bear the brunt of the war — could accelerate the centrifugal tendencies of the European Union. Any left or anti-imperialist position must openly and emphatically repudiate the occupation undertaken by Putin’s autocratic government and demand the immediate withdrawal of Russian military forces from all Ukrainian territory. At the same time, it must encourage the Ukrainian population to take a stand independent of the pro-imperialist Zelenskyy government — which even now is negotiating with Trump to hand over the country’s mineral resources — and the various reactionary nationalist forces subordinate to the NATO powers. It must include in its program the right to self-determination for the populations of Donetsk and Luhansk; without this, it is impossible to overcome the current division of the population and leaves it to be preyed upon by rival bourgeois leaderships that are vying with each other on behalf of Putin or the Western imperialist powers. In the separatist republics of eastern Ukraine, it is also necessary to oppose the Russian occupation, confronting Putin’s demagogy that uses the just demands of the sectors of the population that are of Russian descent for its own interests. The only way out of this is to fight for a socialist, workers’, and independent Ukraine. The European and international workers’ movement must prepare to fight against future militarization on the continent.
The European bourgeoisie and its governments are in a position of shock and a certain paralysis in the face of a period of renewed competition between great powers. Trump is keen to underline this fact. The European continent is one of the epicenters of the international political crisis. Given this, the failure of the different (anti-)strategic variants of neo-reformism, which wanted to govern European capital in coalition with traditional forces of the imperialist regimes — such as Podemos in Spain (in alliance with the neoliberal PSOE), or Syriza in Greece which quickly moved from an “anti-austerity” discourse (without anti-capitalism) to carrying out the main attacks demanded by Germany and the European Central Bank — becomes more evident. Even Die Linke in Germany, despite some electoral recovery, has been weakened in recent years by its integration into the status quo, including government positions in the German imperialist state. These modalities of class conciliation have strictly opposed the development of independent class struggle by workers, have perpetrated attacks in favor of businessmen when they governed, and have led to the strengthening of right-wing forces in their respective countries.
The Belgian workers’ general strike against the extreme right-wing government’s austerity in Brussels reveals the great potential of class struggle, which broke out in France against the pension reform in 2023, and in Germany in the face of the transport workers’ mobilizations. It is essential that workers, in their rejection of the various imperialist governments and extreme right-wing forces, develop an organic internationalism, in defense of immigrants and the peoples oppressed by the continental bourgeoisies around the world. This is what the groups of the Trotskyist Fraction for the Fourth International have been doing in the various European countries where it is present, such as in the campaign of the comrades of Klasse Gegen Klasse in the German elections, with an anti-imperialist and class independent perspective linked to the fight against the government and the extreme right of the AfD in anti-racist demonstrations, and what our comrades of Révolution Permanente debated at their first Congress, advancing the positions of Trotskyism on the French revolutionary Left.
In this context, it is essential for the working class to take an independent stance against all capitalist governments on the continent, since the capitalist governments promote the Far Right and amplify the militarist policy of the United States. As Leon Trotsky said in 1929, addressing the problem of the fragmentation of capitalist Europe in the face of the rising power of the United States:
The essence of our epoch lies in this, that the productive forces have definitely outgrown the framework of the national state and have assumed primarily in America and Europe partly continental, partly world proportions. The imperialist war grew out of the contradiction between the productive forces and national boundaries. And the Versailles peace which terminated the war has aggravated this contradiction still further. In other words: thanks to the development of the productive forces, capitalism has long ago been unable to exist in a single country. Meanwhile, socialism can and will base itself on far more developed productive forces; otherwise socialism would represent not progress but regression with respect to capitalism. In 1914 I wrote: “If the problem of socialism were compatible with the framework of a national state, it would thereby become compatible with national defense.” The formula Soviet United States of Europe is precisely the political expression of the idea that socialism is impossible in one country. Socialism cannot of course attain its full development even in the limits of a single continent. The Socialist United States of Europe represents the historical slogan which is a stage on the road to the world socialist federation.
In this same sense, revolutionary socialists must multiply the propaganda in favor of the United Socialist States of Europe, not only as a weapon against the Europe of capital, but also against all the nationalist poison carried by the extreme right within the European Union or by reactionary powers like Russia.
This article was originally published in Portuguese on February 16, 2025 in Ideias de Esquerda.
Translation: Madeleine Freeman