Trump Administration 2.0 and the Transatlantic Relationship

The approach highlighted by the Trump Administration 2.0 towards traditional allies and the rest of the world, with the exception of Russia (which can easily afford to do what it wants), has upset the parameters according to which international relations and alliances have been based up to now. In this context the relationship of trust between the two sides of the Atlantic, which brought together countries whose societies were based on the classical values ​​of Euro-American culture, is continually mistreated by the statements of Trump and his cronies.

The aversion, if not a real visceral hatred, towards Europe by the current administration finds, in fact, daily public confirmation through declarations released with mendacious, vulgar and offensive language, which perfectly paints the portrait of a group of characters to whom each reader can independently evaluate which adjectives to attribute.

You only have to read the news of the last two months to realise this, up to the "presidential" declarations released during the last gala dinner (sic!) of the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington. This is raising doubts, even among the Republican ranks, about the real capabilities of this group. Perhaps, I repeat perhaps, even members of their own party have begun to understand that popular wisdom often has a longer view than one might think, when it states for example that to evaluate the ability of a leader, just look at the characters he surrounds himself with. And interesting characters, this administration has many.

National Security Advisor Waltz, for example, used a chat not safe to circulate operational plans with other high officials of the State, including the head of the Pentagon Hegseth and vice president Vance, mistakenly including a journalist who, fortunately for the US military involved in the operations, waited until the end of the event before highlighting the serious security breach, demonstrating a sensitivity and a sense of State far superior to that of the participants in the chat. A problem that would have probably cost any US military man at least a disbarment with infamy, but that has not affected Trump's trust in his advisor ("...he's a good man..."), who has not lost his job. To put it in Latin terms, asinus asinum fricatⁱ.

In this context, the replacement of the directors of the CIA, NSA, FBI and the chief of the joint forces, the changes of the head of naval operations and the military representative to NATO, in addition to the drastic reduction of the staff of the main national security agencies and of many ministries (with some reinstatements ordered by the judges) has certainly not strengthened the overall framework of the US system, but has insinuated the idea that Trump 2.0 is a administration that rewards loyalty over competenceIt doesn't matter if crime prevention action is weakened, for example, the important thing is that people know that those who go against the sheriff (copyright J.D. Vance) loses his job, as do the officers who investigated the crimes that led to his 34-count conviction. But wasn't the sheriff in favor of the law? Evidently not, since he immediately pardoned those convicted of the assault on Congress. Today, in the US, to lose your job, you just have to disagree with the government line, like the commander of the US detachment in Greenland, removed for having criticized (in an internal email at the base, ed.) the statements of JD Vance and, therefore, seen as a saboteur of the presidential program.

Geopolitical implications

What does this mean in geopolitical terms? The general superficiality highlighted in the first three months of government which has, for example, in the confused and bizarre algorithm for calculating duties and in the clumsy tariff campaign conducted with apparentⁱⁱ little clarity, what implications could it have on the balance of the world?

At the moment, we can only speculate on this. If the measures and targets of the duties announced during the Liberation Day, the only real result that could be achieved would be to push all of Southeast Asia into the arms of the Chinese economy, and history (even recent history) teaches us that once you are economically tied to Beijing, you become its prey, forever. Ask the African countries, or even South American ones, that in the last thirty years have accepted large investments on their territory. The economic bond then becomes also, if not above all, political..

In practical terms, what does this mean? That if all of Southeast Asia were to fall into China's sphere of influence, the US would be forced to retreat from some bases in that area and, above all, the various disputes over the sovereignty of the various atolls of the South China Sea would be resolved rapidly in Beijing's favor (despite the contrary opinions, even in legal terms, of the main international institutions) and those waters, crossed by the main maritime trade routes towards Europe, would become a permanent garrison managed by the PLAN. A geopolitical result that would achieve the unenviable result of doing more damage to the US and the cause of freedom of navigation than to the Chinese Communist Party.

Not only that, the tariff system, as it has been applied (including, for example, islands inhabited only by penguins or countries, such as Lesotho, which are not particularly prosperous) has demonstrated an incredible inadequacy on the part of those who have taken care of the dossier, sending the international credibility of this administration to find "pink mouth". And International credibility, in geopolitics, is a substantial part of deterrence and effective diplomatic action.

In this context, only one country has expressed unconditional approval for Trump's action: Russia (sic!).

The geopolitical objectives of solving the war in Ukraine, putting China against the wall and putting a leash on Europe, however, seem to have failed at the moment, as Putin continues to "play" by saying one thing, doing the opposite and making demands that are even higher than his initial intentions, the dragon does not even think about bowing down to the American eagle, responding with duty after duty (now they have reached 125%) and Europe has shown that it is not intimidated by the presidential antics, showing a balance and a capacity for reflection that have positively surprised many observers.

And while China is interpreting Trump's wavering decisions on tariffs as evidence of geopolitical weakness, Europe continues to believe in the United States (which may be different from its temporary administration), but has emphatically publicized its contacts with Beijing, probably more to send a message to Trump than to Xi Jinping. A close alliance with those who have never condemned Moscow's aggression against Ukraine, in fact, would not have beneficial returns for European interests, and it is for this reason that the matter will probably remain at the level of a working hypothesis.

What has been said so far suggests that Trump 2.0's geopolitical strategy, if there is one, follows an authoritarian and imperial vision that, so far, has not only turned out to be a boomerang for the country, given that Trump has substantially taken back almost everything, but has The image of the US as a major world democracy has been severely damaged.

Defense Implications

The verbal and scurrilous attacks against traditionally allied countries, now seen as subjects, by the Trump 2.0 administration have, in fact, started a period of profound changes in the international scenario and this poses important challenges also to our country, in the defense of its priority interests and in the choice of the most suitable tools and policies for their protection and promotion.

The reflections of the various chancelleries are based on the belief that no one can cope alone with the serious challenges that are emerging. Especially when faced with adversaries like Putin and Xi Jinping, threatening and determined to exacerbate every crisis. Not even the USA, however powerful it may be militarily.

And precisely from a political-military perspective, Trump has shown, at least until today, an attitude that seems a little more balanced than what he has shown in the economic sphere, even if the US president never misses an opportunity for further provocations. Aside from the immoral and repeated statements on Greenland, Trump has in fact stated that "... the United States is protected by a large and beautiful ocean...", a phrase interpreted by some observers as a loss of interest in NATO, which is no longer a priority for Washington. A phrase that has worried more than one European observer.

However, apart from the replacement of the US Military Representative at the Alliance Military Committee, there do not appear to be any further concrete actions in this direction and, while waiting for what will emerge at the next meeting at the level of Defense or Foreign Ministers, we can only try to make some general considerations.

First of all, it should be noted that even during his first presidential term, Donald Trump had started with a rather assertive position towards the Atlantic allies, then gradually recalibrated his language and overall attitude towards NATO. Today, while on the one hand he makes statements like the one mentioned above, on the other the US administration insists on asking Europeans to allocate more resources to defense, going as far as to hope for 5% of GDP. All this would be schizophrenic, if Washington were not interested in being part of a strong and efficient Alliance.

A positive outcome of these calls is that they have raised awareness that the European Union needs to acquire greater capabilities by increasing the budget of the defense of each State of the Union, but above all using the funding more carefully. An evolution that can only be made possible by a process of integration, pooling, sharing and rationalization (read overcoming waste and duplication) through a serious process of pooling and sharing of national capabilities useful for developing a credible deterrence, beyond the availability of the assets nuclear power plants in France and the United Kingdom.

After so many years, we still find ourselves talking about building a credible European Defense. In this context, it is true that Europe still depends heavily on Washington's military support, but it should be emphasized that this should not be attributed only to an alleged European inertia, as this delay was also caused by the USA, because for years they have suggested not to acquire certain skills, to avoid "useless" and expensive duplications. Helpful tips to avoid the acquisition of instruments that could allow for “autonomous” action by the EU – a term that has always annoyed Washington greatly.

Secondly, Trump's statement regarding the Ocean as a protective barrier appears superficial and incorrect, and seems to be used more as a provocation than as a real conviction. The United States cannot, in fact, control the Atlantic without the help of the Europeans because, to reach the Ocean, Russian submarines are forced to cross a series of narrow passages (choke points), known as GIUK gap. For decades, NATO has monitored the area using a series of underwater sensors linked to land-based facilities, as well as naval units and maritime patrol aircraft based in the United Kingdom, Iceland and Norway. If this well-established mechanism were to break down, Washington would have a harder time detecting and tracking Russian submarines heading toward the North American coast.

Added to this is the fact that if US Navy ships were to be largely diverted to the Pacific to manage potential crises with China, the United States' dependence on cooperation with its European allies would increase.

And the maritime reference is not accidental, since the Russian threat to NATO's southern front is expressed mainly from the sea, on the sea, above and below the sea. It is no secret that Russian ships, perhaps not in enviable conditions of overall efficiency, but fearfully armed with missiles, they are located in friendly ports in Syria and Libya, a stone's throw from Italy. This would allow them, in theory, to threaten us with missiles that would not need to fly over NATO territory for a long time, as is the case with launches from Russian territory (with the exception of theslave (Kaliningrad). Adding fuel to the fire was the recent news that Putin has said he wants to allocate significant resources to the modernization of his fleet. Where he gets the resources or the foreseeable use of modern ships (Arctic Sea and Mediterranean, given the importance of these trade routes?) one can only speculate. However, given the character's precedents, the issue cannot be dismissed as a simple "prank".

But there are many other reasons why a US exit from NATO would be counterproductive for Washington as well.

Starting from the bases positioned in Europe, from which it is possible, for example, to manage the flight of drones from Afghanistan to Yemen or the logistics of US forces in Africa and the Near and Middle East.

But Washington's convenience in remaining in NATO does not only derive from access to European territory. Our companies are, in fact, deeply integrated into the U.S. Defense supply chain. A large part of the components of the F-35 fighter jet, for example, are produced in Europe, while the United Kingdom provides high-level expertise for Washington's nuclear program.

Then there is theintelligence. The The European contribution is of great value and allows the Americans to be more efficient, to conduct their operations and to act in places that would otherwise be inaccessible., such as the British bases in Cyprus. Of course, serious errors such as that of the chatgate they do not contribute to overall serenity and mutual trust.

Returning to the maritime aspects, there are also economic reasons why it is not convenient for the US to "detach" itself from Europe. The largest companies that manage cargo ships – such as the Danish Maersk, the Italian-Swiss Msc and the French Cma Ggm – are in fact European. Oldendorff, the world's leading company in the field of shipments on board bulk carriers (ships used to transport cargoes such as cereals, coal, raw minerals, cement) is German. Greek shipowners control more than 30% of oil tankers and more than 50% of the fleet that transports liquefied natural gas. The maritime transport industry is also very developed in Asia but, in this field, Europe far surpasses the market share of the United Statesⁱⁱⁱ. Then, the Old Continent is anything but a parasite.

Underscoring the sensitivity of the issue, Trump recently signed an interesting, and innovative, executive order aimed at revitalizing the ailing American shipbuilding industry (only 85 ocean-going ships versus 5.500 Chinese), strengthening the maritime workforce, and expanding the United States' global presence in the commercial shipping sector. In essence, the US wants to restore the Mahanian concept of sea power, because it has understood that Not only will global trade balances be at stake in maritime affairs, but also global geopolitical ones. In this perspective, given that the US currently builds less than one percent of the world's commercial ships, while China produces about half, the new US maritime approach could represent a tempting opportunity for the restoring mutual trust, Strengthening the Transatlantic Relationship and, at the same time, a opportunity for national companies to develop a constructive partnerships Italian(Euro)-American in the shipbuilding sector, an area in which we can boast notable excellence.

For all these reasons, and for the opportunities that seem to be emerging, it does not seem reasonably conceivable that the USA, in the short/medium term, could detach itself from Europe/NATO, both because it is not convenient for them and because they cannot afford it. The transatlantic relationship, however, will probably have to be remodelled, which means greater economic commitment by the allies, but also their greater contractual weight in the Alliance's choices.

Conclusions

The West was built on a partnership based on shared social values, consultation, cooperation, mutual respect and collective action, and this has ensured prosperity and democracy for decades.

In a rapidly changing and increasingly difficult to decipher world, sharing values ​​and mutual trust They represent elements whose added value strengthens international relations and allows us to counter attempts to limit national sovereignty.

On April 10, Trump, during a meeting with his ministers, stated that Europe is no longer seen by Washington as a profiteer, as Trump and his acolytes had wrongly, superficially and offensively believed until the day before (“…they are parasites, they have been for years…”), but as an interlocutor (“…we will deal with the EU, not with individual states…”).

However, it seems rather difficult that relations can quickly return to the levels they once were, precisely because Trump has brought the allies, European and otherwise, to a high level of mistrust, from which we can only turn back with time and with great commitment and good will, on both sides.

In this context, the greatest national military commitment should be expressed by following both the director of missile defense and the maritime director, on which we depend for both imports and exports, not to mention energy supply lines and IT lines. In this sector, synergies should also be sought for a increasing our maritime cargo transport capacity and even stronger collaborations with France and the United Kingdom, but also with Spain and Greece, to talk about the main Mediterranean navies.

That said, we can affirm that, at the moment, there remain good reasons for a certain optimism regarding the continuation of US involvement in the Atlantic Alliance. Even in the political-military sector, after the economic one, we therefore expect Washington to take a clearer and more balanced position, in favor of traditional allies. The occasion could be the next NATO Ministerial. After having unleashed global economic and geopolitical chaos, and having unexpectedly and suddenly reversed course, we must therefore hope for a greater American balance on Defense and Security issues, precisely because we are talking about fundamental issues for the life of a democratic State.

In this context, I believe that a special prize should be awarded to the European Union which, although divided internally by different schools of thought, has reacted with maturity and balance to Trump's bullying and the serious presidential insults and his entourage. Faced with strong provocations associated with anything but urbane ways (“…kissing my ass…”), she was not intimidated and essentially responded with: Donald, you are a dear friend.