Opinions #47/24

Donald Trump wins the American election in a landslide, German Chancellor Scholz calls Russian President Putin, and suddenly the European establishment is in for a shock. And finds itself without any certain reference points. In the classic Atlanticism of the Biden era, conservatives and progressives of the Old Continent found an easy place to land. Under the protection of the formula “in defense of our principles and our values,” they sided with the hawks who favored a forceful confrontation with Russia and the continuation of the war. The same ones who tried to derail the Minsk Agreements and then the Istanbul talks when the conflict started. The disorientation of the European leadership was evident in the cacophony that preceded and accompanied the thousandth day of the Russian-Ukrainian war. The G7 renewed its strongest support for Ukraine “as long as necessary” and the full solidarity of the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, and Japan “in assisting its struggle for sovereignty, freedom, independence, territorial integrity, and reconstruction.” Final slogan: “Russia remains the only obstacle to a just and lasting peace.” The document was circulated immediately after the telephone conversation between Berlin and Moscow became known. Which is what Scholz decided to do, attempting to start a political and diplomatic process that could lead to an end to the conflict. Or at least a ceasefire. An initiative that the Chancellor has gone to great lengths to address the growing discontent among German public opinion. Germany is the country that has paid the most for choosing a new “confrontation” with Russia, and not only in economic terms. The stagnation and risk of recession haunting the former German locomotive is actually combined with a deep political crisis that will lead to early elections at the end of February. A rarity in post-World War II German history. But Scholtz’s turn, although it was in the air, mistakenly surprised his European counterparts. Convinced that a different approach to foreign policy would be inevitable with Trump’s return to the White House, they lashed out at the chancellor. It feels like the reason for the irritation with him is primarily because he anticipated someone else’s actions. Suggesting Berlin – and perhaps not Paris, London or Brussels – as the re-elected tycoon’s main European interlocutor. As for the Italian government, if it thought it could seamlessly transition from Biden to Trump by focusing on Musk’s map, it may be disappointed. In the same hours that the G7 proclaimed a “no ifs or buts” pledge in Kiev, a new blow to Zelensky was struck by Elon Musk. Calling him a humorist for his statement that “no one can force Ukraine to the negotiating table” because “Ukraine is an independent country.” To avoid any misunderstanding, the man who also supplied Kiev with satellites added an old BBC article that presents Zelensky as “a comedian with no experience in politics.” This was followed by another step forward militarily by Biden in Kiev’s favor with permission to use US long-range missiles on Russian territory as well. A highly controversial decision among the outgoing president’s advisers who ultimately chose the measure, supposedly limiting it to the Russian Kursk region only. To strike North Korean troops stationed there – that’s the explanation – and send a strong signal to Pyongyang. An ill-timed decision that didn’t please Trump’s inner circle. His son Donald Jr. has publicly accused the military-industrial complex and Biden of wanting to “start World War III.” Biden knows he is a lame duck, and in a meeting he had with Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the recently concluded APEC summit in Peru, he had to listen to the Chinese leader’s intention to “work with the new US administration to maintain communication, expand cooperation, and overcome differences.” The usual Eastern pragmatism contrasted with the individualistic and emotional enthusiasm of European politicians. At this stage, they are not inclined to engage with events happening on a global level. Pascal Boniface explains this by focusing on Europe in the Trump-2 era. And Daniele Mancini illustrates this in his analysis of the broad development of the Indian system.