The increasingly common consensus of the foreign policy commentariat is that while Europe has finally gotten its act together against Russia‘s threat, President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s weak pawn.
This is inaccurate.
Yes, Trump too often views the trans-Atlantic alliance through a wholly business-like prism, ignoring concerns of history and trust. He also continues to placate Vladimir Putin in misplaced deference to the Russian president. Still, Europe remains unwilling to respond robustly to blatant Russian aggression against its interests. We’ve seen three examples of this dynamic in only the past two weeks.
First, on Wednesday, Lithuanian prosecutors announced that a comprehensive investigation had found that Russia’s GRU military intelligence was responsible for orchestrating a plot last year to smuggle explosives into international shipping packages from Lithuania and then detonate the packages on cargo airliners destined for the United States. In four separate incidents, one package detonated at a German airport, one detonated on a shipping truck in Poland, one detonated at a shipping warehouse in the United Kingdom, and one failed to detonate. The suspects were also involved in an arson attack on an IKEA store in Lithuania. As with a separate arson attack in London, the GRU recruited its agents via the Telegram encrypted messaging app. These GRU risked ending up as acts of war against the U.S. (something the GRU revels in getting away with).
But when it comes to Europe, specifically, these exploding package attacks are only the tip of the iceberg. They join numerous other Russian provocations in recent months, including repeated acts of sabotage against cable networks under the Baltic Sea and even assassination plots. In late August, Russia also launched missile strikes on European Union and U.K. government buildings in Kyiv. All but the most pathetic European leaders, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Slovakia’s Robert Fico, and Spain’s Pedro Sanchez, know that these acts constitute state-sponsored terrorism conducted by a regime that is only deterred by action. But reflecting the EU’s weakness, there has been no serious riposte to Moscow’s hostility in either the diplomatic, intelligence, or military domains.
The second example of European weakness comes via Russia’s drone incursion into Poland last week.
That incident saw Russia send more than a dozen aerial drones into Polish airspace so as to test NATO air defenses and intimidate European populations against increasing EU support to Ukraine. As the Washington Examiner editorialized, NATO should have responded to this outrage by warning Russia that any future drones operating in Belarusian or Ukrainian airspace within 10 miles of Poland would be subject to destruction. And while President Donald Trump foolishly claimed that the drone incursion might have been accidental, Europe has again utterly failed to meet Putin’s test. The only thing the Europeans have done is to deploy additional fighter aircraft to protect Polish airspace. This is necessary but far from sufficient. It will reek in the Kremlin of what it is: calculated weakness.
Finally, Europe is also rejecting Trump’s call to join the U.S. in new secondary sanctions on the energy export-dependent Russian economy. Trump has imposed significant tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian energy. He has also pledged to impose similar tariffs on China if the EU joins the U.S. in that endeavor. Such action would gut the weak Russian economy and force Putin to a more concessionary stance at the Ukraine war negotiating table. The EU response?
As the Wall Street Journal reports, the EU’s answer is an emphatic no. It remains opposed to expediently ending its own imports of Russian energy, opposed to tariffs on China or India over their purchases of Russian energy, and opposed to transferring seized Russian assets to Ukraine. European officials offer innumerable eloquent excuses for this weakness. But it all comes down to the EU’s enduring deference to Russian intimidation, its inability to unify against the most serious threat the political union has faced since its formation, and its demand that the U.S. continue to bear the outsize burden of Europe’s defense.
Again, Trump should approach Putin with a far more realistic mindset and be willing to leverage greater American power to confront his aggression. If not for the EU, he should do so by recognizing that those nations most at threat from Russia, the Baltic states and Poland, are exceptional NATO allies worthy of continued American support.
TRUMP’S UK STATE VISIT DEMANDS NEW PUSH FOR JIMMY LAI RELEASE
At the same time, however, the foreign policy commentariat needs to stop pretending that Europe writ large has gotten its act together in the face of Putin’s aggression. It took Trump’s return to power to get the Europeans to even begin to get serious about their defense budgets. Sadly, European leaders are tempting Putin to believe that only an unprecedented Russian assault on European lives will lead to any serious riposte.
Put another way, the Europeans are hemorrhaging blood in the water while demanding that a solitary American lifeguard handle the approaching sharks alone.