Trump and Putin are reshaping European security. Many thanks to them both
Donald Tusk, Poland’s prime minister, says Russia could hit Ukraine’s allies this year. Emmanuel Macron says the Kremlin’s attacks on critical infrastructure and industry are “intensifying”. The French president summoned party leaders for a unusual crisis meeting on national security. And Canada has asked to join the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).
Join the dots and a picture emerges. Not for the first time, Russian behaviour has proved tactically smart but strategically stupid. The escalating stunts and provocations across Europe have worked in the short term. They made governments look weak and clueless. They worried the public. They showed that supporting Ukraine, even inadequately, has risks and costs. They exposed that Nato is configured for a war that Russia cannot and will not fight: a full-scale confrontation with the world’s most powerful military alliance. They also showed that Nato is not set up for what is happening right now: a real war in Ukraine, and a campaign of mischief and mayhem elsewhere. We face a dangerous few months, or longer.
But actions have consequences. The countries that suffer these attacks are reacting. European leaders are now far more willing to state bluntly that Russia is the perpetrator. When US intelligence warned Germany in 2024 that a Russian hit-squad was planning to kill Armin Papperger, the CEO of Rheinmetall, Chancellor Olaf Scholz did little to show Russia that trying to kill the boss of Germany’s biggest arms manufacturer was unacceptable and risky. Two years later, a failed Russian drone attack on Leipzig airport produced clear attribution, and even limited retribution: the closure of Russia’s consulate in Bonn and cultural centre in Berlin.
The danger is increasingly accepted across the political spectrum. On the campaign trail, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni was supposedly a far-right Russia-lover. In office she has been a staunch critic of Vladimir Putin and supporter of Ukraine. In France, Marine Le Pen, the candidate of the far-right National Rally, is the favourite to win next year’s presidential elections. She is known for pro-Kremlin statements. But rhetorical flourishes on the campaign trail are one thing. Reality is another. She and her party’s leader, Jordan Bardella, issued a joint statement criticising Russia’s seizure of French assets. In Sweden, which like Finland joined Nato in response to Russian aggression, the left-wing winners of last week’s general election are just as hawkish on defence as the outgoing conservatives.
The security architecture is changing too. Vladimir Putin is trying to exploit weaknesses in Nato’s decision-making, accentuated by Donald Trump’s capricious approach. But the allies have a say too. Canada, bruised by Trump’s bullying, is cosying up to the European Union, and also applying to become the 11th member of the JEF, along with the Nordic five, the Baltic three, the Netherlands and the UK.
This rapid-reaction military framework is not an alternative to Nato, but an agile, versatile complement to it. The JEF can act outside (or earlier than) Nato’s ponderous formalities. Perhaps most importantly, it has no US involvement in its decision-making. No US officer sits at its headquarters in Northwood, outside London, potentially blocking decision-making pending instructions from on high. Nobody needs to make a late-night phone call to the White House asking for permission to risk war with Russia.
Other countries, including Poland and Ukraine are also interested in joining the JEF. France is eyeing the UK’s low-voltage leadership and is building ties with JEF members on nuclear sharing and space. JEF’s remit could extend beyond military reinforcement to sub-threshold defence and deterrence.
Trump and Putin: architects of Europe’s new defence and security. We should put up statues to the two men, embracing.
Edward Lucas is a British writer, journalist and security specialist
Photo credit: Luckas spalinger on Unsplash