Cloud of confusion

Many have tried to analyze the outcome of the US election in black and white, although it is still too early to fully understand the magnitude of this globally influential event. Analyzing why people choose someone over someone else has long become an art rather than a science, especially in the age of fierce confrontation between traditional media and social networks. For Americans, there are several important influencing factors that deserve more in-depth analysis, ranging from prejudices about whether a woman can be elected president, whether the "Trump phenomenon" is an exception to the political rule or "bitter medicine" to hypocrisy and erosion of the liberal elite detached from the troubles of ordinary people; for the relations of politics with representation, with money and the technofeudals of the information world; for the fact that perceptions of reality are more powerful than reality itself, as long as algorithms guide political debate on various social platforms.

Donald Trump returned to the White House, reinforcing the trend observed this election year around the world, where people have embraced change. Meanwhile, Republicans will hold majorities in Congress and the Senate, along with a conservative majority of Supreme Court justices. For at least two years, President Trump can do almost anything he wants undisturbed by other powers. The top appointments show that Trump sees this election triumph as a confirmation of his worldview that populism on social issues, opening jobs, securing borders, ending wars, trade and foreign policy under the motto "America of money", are the way forward for the country and a reflection of the wishes of the majority of the American people.

On the international level, a cloud of confusion has been created about the possible influence of the Trump administration in different parts of the world. A fundamental change is expected from it compared to the Biden administration, but also to the first Trump administration itself due to: the two big fronts of the Russia-Ukraine and Middle East wars; the lack of a strong leadership at the European level, as a result of the overwhelming losses of the leading elites in Germany and France; shaping alternative alliances of states with a sizeable geography and population versus a rules-based order; a more complex and competitive international architecture.

The cloud of confusion is great about how relations between Americans and Europeans will develop within the Euro-Atlantic space. A certain shift of American strategic priorities from Europe towards Asia and the Pacific began with the administration of President Obama. The brutal reaction of the first Trump administration to the Europeans to fulfill the obligations stemming from NATO membership, had its origin in the fact that for a part of the Europeans, starting with the French President Macron, NATO had lost the purpose of its existence. However, the American insistence at that time not only "shook" NATO from slumber, but also prepared it to respond to Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

The Biden administration provided a stable link between the US and Europe in confronting Russian aggression in Ukraine. Biden will be the last Euro-Atlantic president in the White House with a worldview shaped since the time of the Cold War, aware of the need to coordinate foreign policy and actions with European allies. Meanwhile, as it has proven during the first presidency, the approach of engagement with allies and the world of President-elect Trump is different. More than the internal political system of other countries, or alliances based on shared values ​​in multilateral institutions, he is interested in reaching agreements, regardless of the orientation of the state, believing in the power of the USA in the field of defense, economy, natural resources and technology.

This will constitute the fundamental challenge of the European allies, who, since the end of the Second World War and then with the fall of the Berlin Wall, consider their relationship with the USA as based on common values ​​and interests. with a focus on commitment to collective security, the rule of law, freedoms and fundamental human rights and to a transparent and multilateral system of free trade.

Precisely because of this approach, the incoming Trump administration also represents an opportunity to create a wider network of non-traditional allies, starting with the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, but also a direct engagement with permanent adversaries such as Russia or North Korea , in order to discourage or end conflicts and wars. The Gulf states and Israel were the first countries Trump traveled to during his first term as president and where he made the most diplomatic progress through the Abraham Accords, which are in place despite the bloody wars in Gaza and Lebanon. It wouldn't be surprising if President Trump made his first trip there again. This time with an effort to expand the Abraham Accords and further isolate Iran, in order to create a stable security architecture in the Middle East.

President-elect Trump has repeatedly said he will end Russia's war in Ukraine within a day, even as the dynamic on the ground is changing due to President Biden's decision to allow Ukraine to retaliate against Russia with US missiles. long range. While an end to the war is a desirable goal for all, the prospect of a lasting peace or cease-fire is slim. Therefore, it remains to be seen how this objective will materialize, the steps that will be followed, coordination or not with European allies. And, above all, the future of Ukraine. Viewed through the prism and range of frozen conflicts in Europe, how this war ends will have an inevitable impact on the security architecture in Europe, including our region. As the elected representative of the EU's foreign policy, Kaja Kallas, rightly said, "Russia's defeat in its war in Ukraine is the surest way not to worry about the Third World War".

If the Trump administration's actions on Ukraine are not coordinated with European allies, it will serve as a test for the Europeans to prove their capacity to stand and act together, despite the US, whose presence they have become accustomed to. many decades. So far, the European response to Ukraine has been unified, principled and strategic, beyond all expectations. The EU and its member states have provided around 43 billion euros in military aid, reinvented the European Peace Instrument, welcomed around four million Ukrainian refugees. On the political level, the EU took steps towards expansion to its east, with the granting of candidate country status and the decision to start membership talks for Ukraine and Moldova. All this could not even be imagined before February 24, 2022.

For Poles, Baltics and Nordics, Ukraine is an important security issue. Finland and Sweden gave up their policy of neutrality and became part of NATO precisely because of the Russian threat. However, a number of European countries far from the war front are paying significant economic costs as a result of the war. Hungarian Prime Minister Orban insists on ending the war and normalizing relations with Russia. In such conditions, the question arises: will the Europeans remain united in the face of the possible unilateral actions of the Trump administration? Unilateral actions coupled with increased US tariffs on European goods, as President-elect Trump has promised during the campaign, could cause major geopolitical rifts within the Euro-Atlantic family with influence across the continent, or a wider European realignment. .

The current European order is based on three pillars which have been dramatically challenged: the softening of the difference between Europe and the USA, through the creation of the Euro-Atlantic community; softening the distinction between internal and external affairs, through the EU deepening policy; softening the difference between the center and the periphery, through the policy of enlargement and neighborhood. The EU needs to repair the above pillars, of which only one has to do with Europe's cooperation with the USA. The other two depend entirely on the will of the EU member states.

Although the Europeans have increased their commitment to NATO, the security of the continent depends to a considerable extent on the support of the USA. European foreign policy is closely linked to that of the US, whether in relation to the Middle East or China. Europe has lagged behind the US and China in terms of technology and has not sufficiently diversified its economic partnerships. It mainly relies on trade relations with the USA. Recently, it has reduced its energy dependence on Russia. In other words, the EU remains vulnerable to trade wars and a new multipolar security order.

Also, today's EU is not only geopolitically more exposed, but also more politically divided, in terms of the model it presents, the need for reform, the way it operates and decision-making, and the competing agendas regarding the enlargement and consolidation process. of the European project to its south and east.

At the meeting of the European Political Community held in Budapest, after the US elections, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban considered his privileged relationship with Trump as an opportunity for the EU to advance its interests, to end the war on the continent and to normalize relations with Russia. What are the conditions for ending the war and what normalization of relations with Russia means, this remains unclear. At the height of OSCE-ODIHR criticism of the standards of parliamentary elections in Georgia, Prime Minister Orban paid a visit to Tbilisi, hailing the process, which sparked a wave of criticism from most EU member states.

Likewise, Hungary has increased its economic presence in our region and political patronage, building preferential relations with Serbia, North Macedonia, Republika Srpska and conjunctural relations with Albania. Although it is one of the first countries to recognize Kosovo's independence, the opposing attitudes of recent years towards Kosovo's aspirations to become part of international organizations are evidence of the fact that the EU's policy towards Kosovo is now a policy with 21 recognizing states, minus five non-recognizing ones and Hungary with its own policy, which paralyzes the common European attitude and action for ending the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo and their membership in the EU.

Meanwhile, French President Macron's repeated call to reduce dependence on the US and efforts to move from the EU to the European Political Community do not match the political reality nor the aspirations of a good part of Europeans. An intergovernmental format with a diversified political geography, without decision-making and instruments, the European Political Community could not replace either the indispensable US presence in Europe or the transformative process of EU membership.

The current moment is decisive for important changes in the European integration project. Clarification will follow the confusion, creating the possibility to understand the direction of the movement of the continent, forward or in the wrong direction. Of course, the weakening of the Euro-Atlantic connection is not a good omen for our region, where the USA is considered as the guarantor of the security perimeter, while the Europeans are "allergic" to force. However, this implies the need for increased European vigilance, to strengthen the deterrent capacity of KFOR troops in Kosovo and EUFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as two critical points in the field of regional security.

The exercise of a geopolitics, without values ​​by the EU, as a "sedative" in the absence of the membership process of the states of the region, has weakened the trust of the citizens in the EU. Although the EU has had a leading role in the region, in terms of the values ​​and standards it embodies, the enlargement process has not translated into more democracy, democratic standards and well-being for the citizens of the region.

President-elect Trump's vow to deport undocumented immigrants from the US reflects a trend within the EU which, in the absence of a unified policy, has allowed member states to drift further and further away from respecting international law. , as seen in the case of the agreement between Italy and Albania for the creation of "immigrant return centers" in Albania. The same can be said about the agreement between Germany and Serbia regarding lithium, which creates the impression that critical materials and immigration are priorities for the EU, in order to achieve its own strategic goals, unfortunately, at the expense of of democracy and the rule of law in the Western Balkans.

The above examples show how the EU can be "Balkanized" or "reformed", due to the compromise of the values ​​and standards of the enlargement process, especially during the last decade. They undermine its capacity to present itself as a united front in the Western Balkans, making citizens feel not as part of the European family, but as its periphery that serves to solve the "problems" of Europe.

In the event that the first Trump administration shook NATO from slumber, the return of Donald Trump to the White House should serve as an impetus for clarifying the common goals of the EU and the future of the European project. "Europe's hour has come," Luxembourg's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jacques Poos, proudly said in 1991, as he led efforts on behalf of the EU to find a solution to the conflict that had just erupted in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, the solution came from the US, whose determination stopped wars and ensured peace. Although about a quarter of a century has passed since the end of the wars in the region, the EU has not proved the capacity to end the conflicts and anchor all the states of the region in its bosom. In the new geopolitical circumstances, the EU has again been called to the challenge to be at the height that the times require. /Publication of the "Friedrich Ebert" Foundation/