Is Europe ready for the US election result?

At the beginning of this year, we he pointed out the need – and increasing urgency – for Europe to improve its defense capabilities and create a degree of independence from the United States. It is not clear what progress NATO and, in particular, European member states have made. While a Donald Trump victory can be expected to shift Washington’s efforts away from European defense more drastically, even the Biden/Harris administration has prioritized reprioritizing the Middle East and a “pivot” to Asia.

European states seem to prioritize their security and collective capabilities, especially as they face a multitude of threats and an uncertain future with their American partner. The alliance’s choice of its new secretary-general – Mark Rutte, a former prime minister of the Netherlands known for his pragmatic and consensus-driven leadership – suggests that members sought a leader who would not only strongly support Ukraine, but also -strengthen its defense in the form of an emboldened Russia. During the summer, and NATO concluded its largest military exercise since the Cold War, involving more than 90,000 troops, practicing a rapid deployment across the Atlantic and Europe. At NATO The Washington Summit in July, member countries pledged long-term support to Ukraine and adopted numerous policies and strategies on pressing issues. In particular, the alliance has updated its Policy guidelines regarding Counterterrorism and NATO leaders also supported a revised AI strategy to accelerate the responsible use of AI within the alliance. NATO as well announced August is working on adopting emerging and disruptive technologies and establishing principles for responsible use.

These recent initiatives respond to some of the biggest challenges facing the alliance: Russian aggression and hybrid activities, a proliferation of cyber threats from foreign interference to hacking, a rise in violent extremism and terrorism, including the far right and of Salafi jihadism, and the role of emerging technologies in amplifying and exacerbating many of these problems. However, such progress may not be enough to address an uncertain future partnership with the White House, particularly with the potential for a Russia-friendly administration, a protracted conflict in the Middle East, or changing dynamics on the continent, such as be the rise of far-right parties, many of which have pro-Russian positions and have sought to change security priorities.

The concept of “waterproofing” the alliance has been discussed before, including at the Washington Summit in July, where leaders brainstormed ways to protect the alliance and the international security order from potential disruptions from changing administrations. However, in reality, not much can be done to ensure the vitality of the alliance through pre-emptive action. Some NATO allies are reaching out to people close to the former president to mitigate the risks. Others are pushing for a NATO bank to support defense spending and protect collective security. These efforts mean little without future US support for the transatlantic project. Moreover, the concept of “assets” itself can be considered anti-democratic and reinforces the skepticism and distrust of international institutions that is increasingly common among the Western electorate.

While examining the implications for European security strategy and the future of the Alliance under each presidential candidate is important, it is clear that US priorities will increasingly shift back to the Middle East as the Israel-Hamas conflict continues and expands , regardless of the election result. Resources can also be redirected to international counter-terrorism efforts alongside strategic competition priorities. FBI Director Christopher Wray highlighted earlier this year, an unprecedented number of simultaneous threats to the United States, including terrorism across the ideological spectrum, interference in foreign elections, espionage, among others. Furthermore, while the much-discussed US pivot to the Indo-Pacific has yet to fully materialize, it would be short-sighted to ignore the potential for increased US engagement in that region, especially given that strengthening the alliance between hostile authoritarian regimesincluding Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. Despite the small victories that NATO has achieved in recent months, Europe must not be naive about its future security and should reconsider its excessive dependence on the United States.

A Harris administration would likely provide continuity with its predecessor in its policies around NATO and Europe. While Harris may be less marked by Cold War-era security policy, she has explicitly pledged to continue supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and building international alliances to protect US interests against authoritarian regimes. During her speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, she explicitly stated her administration would stand with NATO allies and Ukraine if she were to become president, underscoring that commitment.

The fact that leaders are trying to “Trump” NATO is a testament to the lessons learned during the former president’s tenure. Trump has often called the alliance outdated and suggested that the US’s commitment to NATO’s mutual defense clause would depend on whether individual member states met their financial obligations. However, the former administration barked, without any bite: The US did not reduce its military presence in Europe, while Trump participated in diplomatic engagements with NATO leaders, albeit with a more transactional and finance-oriented focus. His presidency, viewed in terms of European defense spending, was in some ways a relative success, apparently catalyzing increased investment by Europeans in their own defense.

With an image that appears on what the potential NATO policy of a second Trump administration would look like, all signs point to the former president remaining skeptical of NATO, with an increasingly transactional policy toward the continent. This could be a positive development for the acceleration of European strategic autonomy, if it were not associated with Trump’s tendency to side with Russia. Trump is considering cutting back regarding the exchange of information with European NATO member states. Without the full weight of the US intelligence apparatus, Europe’s situational awareness of Russia—and its ability to counter Russia’s increasing aggression and interference on European soil—is bound to decline sharply. Moreover, Trump stated could solve conflict between Ukraine and Russia one day, involving a settlement rather than the full restoration of Ukraine’s borders. At a February rally in South Carolina, Trump said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell it wants” to any NATO member country that doesn’t follow defense spending rules. And former President Trump did would have continued the conversations with President Vladimir Putin after he left office, including a conversation in which Trump discouraged U.S. military aid to Ukraine, according to journalist Bob Woodward. If true, along with Trump’s public statements about Russia and European alliances, it paints a bleak picture for the future of NATO. While it appears that the United States will not leave the Alliance, it could become a quid-pro-quo-driven organization severely affected by perceived sympathy for Russia by its main benefactor.

The outcome of the US presidential election will not only affect NATO and European defense more broadly, but will also serve to coalesce and embolden the forces currently at work on the continent. His rise far-right populist parties in Europe – who are often both Eurosceptic and pro-Russian – has resulted in notable electoral successes in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, France, among others. These leaders represent a growing faction within the European Parliament — particularly among populists in Central Europe — who have advocated for less support for Ukraine and closer alignment with Russian interests. Not only could a Trump presidency strengthening these groups, and vice versa, at the national and EU level, but also the weakening of the Alliance and other security institutions, especially in the face of an emboldened Russia.

Although Russia is largely successful influence across the European far-right has been demonstrated, the growing convergence of the continent’s far-right and far-left populist forces means that the threat to European security does not clearly cut across ideological lines, as seen in the common protests in Czech Republic. Left-wing, pro-Russian Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico—who engaged earlier this month he “will never agree to Ukraine joining NATO” – is also an apt example. As these parties continue to capitalize on the war in Ukraine, energy prices and the cost-of-living crisis, along with the institutional grievances of some in the European electorate, a Trump administration could strengthen the hand of these parties substantially as well. European change security priorities, weakening the continent’s ability to defend itself against foreign interference and aggression.

The impact of US leadership on European security is far more nuanced than a simple good-bad dichotomy. While it is clear that Trump’s pro-Russian leanings would wreak significant havoc on the Alliance, European security cannot be tied to the health of NATO, regardless of who is in charge across the Atlantic. The United States now has its eyes refocused on the Middle East, and with the war showing no signs of abating and a ceasefire seemingly out of reach, expecting a Harris Administration to fully protect Europe’s security and future is naïve at best. As Europe’s rising populist forces demonstrate, failure to strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy and defense will likely weaken overall security, regardless of who occupies the White House. German newspaper Die Welt recently reviewed NATO’s updated military plans and found a significant increase in demand placed on member states from 2022. In addition to calling for an increase in the number of troops ready to fight against a Russia, NATO military leaders are urging a rapid increase in air and missile defense capabilities. Playtime is over; it is time to view NATO as a complement rather than the backbone of a robust European security apparatus.