When in 2019 Donald Trump first suggested that the US acquire Greenland, Europeans dismissed the idea as a bad joke. But they’re not laughing now.
My latest column for Brussels Times explains why Trump wants Greenland, how he might gain control of it, and what that would mean – not just for Greenland and Denmark, but also for Ukraine and the rest of Europe.
It concludes that in a world governed by force, Europe needs to be able to defend itself – not by 2035, but now.
EU leaders are quick to tweet that they ‘stand with Ukraine’. But talk is cheap. Unless they are willing to follow words with action, Putin will rightly conclude that they are all mouth and no trousers.
There is a compelling case for using Russia’s frozen assets. But the overriding priority is to sustain Ukraine come what may. If all else fails, the EU should simply borrow the money. That is what the Commission is proposing as a stopgap measure, and it could also be a viable longer-term solution.
Read my latest column for The Brussels Times
Trump and Putin negotiating Ukraine’s future without consulting Europeans; the EU capitulating to Trump on trade; European factories choked by China’s rare-earth curbs:
Now that global decisions are increasingly dictated by hard-power realities not technocratic rules, the once-mighty EU suddenly seems like a paper tiger.
Read my latest column for Brussels Times, which analyses the EU’s four big vulnerabilities and sets out what it needs to do to become a superpower.
Later this month, NATO is set to agree targets for higher defence spending, by an as-yet-unconfirmed future date.
But Europe needs to rearm massively, right now. The threat from Putin is imminent, as is the risk that Trump abandons Europe, or betrays it by siding with Putin.
While this will eventually require tax rises and/or spending cuts, the best way to fund such a big emergency boost to defence spending is by borrowing more for a few years, preferably collectively. This could involve a coalition of willing governments, both EU and non-EU.
Done right, this could also help streamline military procurement, better integrate Europe’s fighting forces and even provide a much-needed lift to Europe’s struggling economies.
My latest Substack essay explains how best to do this.
Trump is destroying the post-1945 economic and geopolitical order that the US created and led. What comes next?
Read my new Substack essay
“There’s a new sheriff in town,” declared US Vice President J.D. Vance at this year’s Munich Security Conference. With his boss, “Sheriff” Donald Trump, openly disparaging America’s longstanding security commitments and actively undermining European security, the United States can no longer be trusted, and it is up to Europe’s leaders to bolster the continent’s defense capacity – and fast.
Read this Project Syndicate Big Picture, with a contribution from me.
How can European countries possibly afford to increase military spending at a time when their economies are weak, public finances are stretched, and many voters are loath to accept cuts to other government spending? In fact, there is no shortage of options – and, with the United States going its own way, no room for further delay.
Read my latest column for Project Syndicate
Shell-shocked Europeans will be tempted to hunker down and hope that Donald Trump does not make good on his most extreme threats, like sweeping import tariffs and quitting NATO. But this would be a catastrophic mistake; Europeans must swallow their pride and try to capitalise on Trump’s craving for admiration.
Read my latest column for Project Syndicate
The growing likelihood of an unhinged Donald Trump returning to power and acting on his threats to withdraw the United States from NATO should serve as a wake-up call for Europe. Instead of hoping for the best, European countries must boost their military spending and establish a robust defence union
Read my latest column for Project Syndicate
Angela Merkel’s announcement of her political departure has prompted a predictable response from many quarters: that she was the “steady hand” that held Europe together, and that her “strong and stabilising leadership” will be sorely missed.
Nonsense. Merkel’s 13 years in office have involved domestic drift and European decay. She has complacently coasted along, failing to address Germany’s mounting economic and security challenges, and allowing Europe’s many crises to fester. Her approach would be tolerable for a small country in quiet times; it is catastrophic for Europe’s dominant power in an era of upheaval, as I explain in Project Syndicate.
Mehreen Khan kindly mentioned the piece in the FT’s Brussels briefing
My latest column for Brussels Times