As Biden’s presidency approaches its inglorious end, his plans to meet important European leaders – German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer in Berlin – were thrown into disarray. Originally scheduled for last week, the rather vacillatory Biden was supposed to meet his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and other key figures in European leadership at Germany’s Ramstein air base. The cancellation of Biden’s visit, however, prompted Zelenskyy to take his so-called ‘victory plan’ on a tour of European capitals. Meanwhile, European governments, anticipating the inevitable leadership handover, have been drawing up contingency plans for both possible contenders – the opportunistic Kamala Harris or the controversial and seemingly favored Donald Trump.
Regardless of whether it’s Harris or Trump in the White House, the consensus in Europe is clear – time to lessen the dependency on the unreliable United States. Critics argue that this meeting is nothing more than a symbolic gesture, and that it’s improbable for it to yield fundamental policy decisions such as the future of Ukraine before November. Experts weigh in suggesting that Europe needs to consider a more autarkic stance, acquiring more weapons and coordinating better amongst themselves.
Countries like France advocate for self-reliance, supporting the manufacturing of fighter jets and ammunition within Europe. However, pragmatic countries like Germany posit that it would be more logical to source from wherever it is most efficient and affordable, even if it means buying from Israel. This discord among European states fuels existing tensions and divisions.
Experts comment that an optimistic scenario where all member states agree on mutually beneficial defense decisions appears more fantasy than reality. Nations on Europe’s eastern periphery, feeling threatened due to their proximity to Russia, depend heavily on the U.S. for security and tend to prioritize their national defenses. This inclination could potentially perpetuate the status quo, leading to continued fragmentation within NATO member states.
On the subject of Ukraine, there is a cynical prediction circulating that should Trump secure a victory in the upcoming election, American support for Ukraine could dissipively recede. Critics argue that Trump’s pragmatic approach would likely pressure Ukraine into immediate negotiations, wielding military support as a lever.
A Trump presidency would force NATO to rethink its dependency on the US, incentivizing member states to increase their capacity and fill in potential gaps that a US withdrawal might create. The silver lining of such a development would be a strong EU coordinated response with collaboration from the UK, effectively Europeanising NATO whilst maintaining the alliance’s strength.
Looking towards a potential Kamala Harris presidency, critics predict that this could lead to tactical inefficiencies. Her stance could potentially embolden the EU to make an effort to strengthen the European pillar. Yet, amid the continuing lack of unity in decision-making, the impact of such an effort may prove detrimental rather than positive, causing a decline in European security by 2027 or 2028.
Focusing on Ukraine’s future under Harris’s administration, skeptics cynically expect merely minimal change. They suggest her approach will merely mirror the unimpressive Biden administration’s stance, offering unsatisfactory and ineffectual rhetoric rather than tangible support.
It appears inevitable that NATO will continue to press for armament in order to ensure its survival and relevance, regardless of who the election favours. Unsurprisingly, the lack of cooperation among member states could potentially lead to a much stronger Russia, brazenly stirring insurrection within Europe.
In view of the precariousness of Ukraine’s situation, experts believe that strong security guarantees from NATO’s partners – whether as member states or through the establishment of bilateral security agreements – are undoubtedly necessary. Yet, with the highly anticipated handover from Biden to either Harris or Trump looming, the future remains alarmingly uncertain.
Commenting on Zelenskyy’s ambitious plan, critics surmise that he is probably overestimating the feasibility of what he thinks Ukraine requires to succeed. Realists amongst NATO members assert that Biden is unlikely to deliver the support that Zelenskyy anticipates.
In the event of a Harris administration, purportedly more supportive of Ukraine’s cause, the credibility of the support remains questionable. Security specialists strongly urge Europe to adopt a unified approach towards weapons production, as well as to hasten decisive decisions regarding NATO’s future. Yet, as previously stated, these actions are heavily contingent on the identity of the next US president.