Europe needs to unify and toughen up, fast
Yes, the US is trying to exclude Europe from an issue of vital European interest. No, it is not the first time.
Why Washington excludes Europe
My personal familiarity with this apparently undiplomatic behavior dates from the Dayton agreements that end the Bosnian war. The Europeans were present, but excluded from the key decisions. Holbooke was convinced that they would only complicate things and slow the negotiations. So he ordered Bob Gallucci to get them involved in an endless discussion of the international police force. Should it have executive authority, as the Americans wanted, or not, as the European insisted?
The tactic worked. Only the Germans, who worked bilaterally with the Americans without EU cover, had any impact at Dayton. Holbrooke encouraged Bonn, to prevent a united European consensus against him. The other Europeans had no significant role. The British and French complained bitterly without effect. But they and the rest of the EU were left holding the bag–they paid for much of the reconstruction.
Something similar had happened a few years earlier in the reunification of Germany. The Americans agreed to a 2+4 (two Germanies plus the four occupying powers) format for the diplomacy. But Washington then prevented most important issues from getting on the 2+4 agenda. The format was a fig leaf for US and (West) German decisions.
I’m sure there are many other examples.
The Ukraine negotiations
The Americans are trying the same trick now in the Ukraine negotiations. They intend to work directly with the Russians, excluding not only the UK and EU but also Ukraine. Washington wants to avoid the complications and delays dealing with them would cause. It again intends to leave the Europeans holding the bag. They will be expected not only to pay for the reconstruction but also to field peacekeepers.
The Americans have already made one big mistake. They have telegraphed what they are up to. Defense Secretary Hegseth’s scolded the Europeans at NATO. President Trump’s undertook his talk with Russian President Putin without consultation with allies. The Russian and American Foreign Ministers are meeting this week in Riyadh. Vice President Vance’s offensive talk at the Munich Security Conference told the Europeans all they needed to know.
The US is moving to conclude the Ukraine war on Moscow’s terms. That means surrendering Ukrainian territory for peace. The Americans want, as they have for several presidencies, to pivot away from the defense of Europe. They are also playing to their domestic audience, some of which is Russophilic and anti-European.
What the Europeans need to do now
Amply alerted, the Europeans are reacting quicker than usual. Key states are meeting in Paris today to plan what to do. Here is what I would suggest:
- They agree to monitor a peace settlement only if it in principle preserves Ukraine’s pre-2014 sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- They supply Ukraine with all the weapons and intelligence it needs to win, substituting for any shortfalls from the US.
- Europeans should examine any agreement reached without their presence on its merits, but with prejudice.
- They deploy trainers and technicians to Ukraine to help with both military and civilian tasks.
The Americans won’t like this. They may even try something like what Holbrooke did: convince a big country like Germany or Poland to cooperate bilaterally. That would block a European consensus. But so long as Europe continues to insist on point 1 above, they won’t be stuck with a bad deal.
Trump is different
The difference between Holbrooke’s exclusion of the Europeans and Trump’s is significant. President Clinton, Holbrooke’s boss, backed the NATO alliance and was sympathetic to the EU, which then included the UK. After Dayton, there was no need for a continuing rift between Europe and the US. The agreements reached accorded with European preferences. The rift ended quickly and Europe carried a big burden post-war.
The same won’t happen with Trump. He is unsympathetic to alliances in general, NATO in particular, and the EU most of all. The Americans are pushing for an agreement that will encourage future Russian aggression. If Europe is going to punch at least its weight in future trans-Atlantic issues, it needs to unify and toughen up, fast.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The America Trump wants is not democratic
NPR broadcast a piece this morning on the dismantling of US democratization efforts abroad.
The Trumpkins/Muskites are cutting the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). NPR doesn’t say, but I assume the International Republican Institute (IRI) is also bleeding out. It gets much of its funding through NED, as does NDI. State Department and USAID funding for democratization is also frozen.
Trump is an authoritarian
This is not surprising. Trump has made it clear he thinks he is above the law:
Vice President Vance in Munich this week lectured the Europeans for their alleged intolerance of authoritarian politics. He also preferred meeting with the head of the neo-Nazi Alternative für Deutschland(AfD) rather than Germany’s chancellor.
They are not hiding their own identity or their preferences.
It is not just a preference
At home, Trump is doing authoritarian as well as talking it. The Trump-backed Musk cuts are hitting institutions and programs Congress has authorized and to which it has appropriated funds. The President has a sworn obligation to execute those instructions. The House impeached Trump in 2019 for failing to do so with Ukraine assistance. But that can’t happen again so long as Republicans have the majority. Trump is unleashed.
Some Federal courts have begun to order unfreezing of funds and halts or reversal of firings. Trump is not complying. He is defying and pushing back to force escalation of the cases to the Supreme Court. There he hopes the 6-3 majority he created will back his moves. Even if he loses there, the delay will have destroyed most of what Trump and Musk wanted destroyed.
What’s next?
I expect Trump to go after the courts. He will order up impeachments in Congress of a few Federal judges. If he picks weak and vulnerable ones, they will resign to protect themselves. This will precipitate many more resignations, giving him the possibility of filling them with his own, young, yes-people.
I suppose at some point there will be massive demonstrations around the country to object to the authoritarian drift. Trump will order violent police action in response. That’s what he wanted to do in his first term. This time around, he won’t hesitate.
He also won’t hesitate to cut taxes for the rich, as he did in his first term. Some of those big cuts expire at the end of 2025. The Republicans in Congress are lining up to do the deed. They’ll give the working class voters who backed Trump a pittance.
The economy is headed into stagflation. Inflation is already up a tad. The new tariffs and shortage of labor due to deportations will contribute more pressure on prices. Meanwhile the government firings and the added costs of the tariffs to consumers will slow the economy. The stock market, which has experienced a glorious 16 years of rise, will implode. That’s not really a prediction, as I haven’t attached a date to it. But I find it hard to believe we’ll get through the next four years without a bust.
Stopping the craziness
I see little immediate prospect for stopping this craziness. A few Republican defections in the House and Senate would help. But Trump’s threat to primary defectors has worked so far. The only real dissenters among Republicans have been people who aren’t running again.
The first big opportunity will be the November 2026 Congressional elections. All of the House and one third of the Senate will then be up for grabs. But only a handful of seats will be competitive. Winning enough of those to gain a majority in one of the Houses will be existential for the Democrats. And for democracy in America and the world.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The cabinet of horrors is getting confirmed
After an initial rejection of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, President Trump is getting all of his nominees confirmed. Arguably several are as bad as Gaetz on the issues. But none of the others quite tops his paying for sex and doing drugs. They can nevertheless do a great deal of harm in office, so let’s review the bidding:
Attorney General Pam Bondi
Trump’s second choice intends to use the Justice Department’s tools against Trump opponents and in favor of his supporters. There is no pretense of independence in Bondi’s Justice Department. She has dropped criminal charges against New York City Mayor Adams because he supports Trump on immigration. She is suing New York State Governor Hochul and other officials because they don’t. The Justice Department is firing lawyers who participated in the prosecution of January 6 rioters.
We can expect this pattern to continue. A few more years of this and there won’t be independent-minded lawyers at Justice. They will all have caved to MAGAism. That is unprecedented. It also violates the principle of equal justice for all. What else would be expected from a President who has spent a career stiffing courts and evading accountability?
Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy
An anti-vax zealot despite his denials, Kennedy will do his best to block vaccines and other public health measures. He will do nothing to protect the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health from Trumpkin purges. While both institutions no doubt need reform, the meat ax approach of Elon Musk is already doing them irreparable damage. Kennedy won’t lift a finger to prevent drastic funding cuts.
The real meat and potatoes of HHS is in Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans intend to gut Medicaid, which provides health care to the poor. They’ll be more careful with Medicare, which provides hospital and doctors to older Americans. But there are a thousand ways they can cut benefits and increase costs. Kennedy will do it.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard
Even Republicans know she is a peril to national security. But except for Senator McConnell they did not have the gumption to vote no. Her flaking for Russian President Putin and Syrian President Assad has been blatant. She couldn’t get any security clearance were she to apply for a mid-level job in the intelligence community. She’ll leak like a sieve, in all the wrong directions.
FBI Director Kash Patel
Not yet confirmed, but the worst of the lot. He has sworn to pursue revenge against Trump’s political enemies and to purge the FBI. He is also a liar, a perjuror, and an enthusiast for the January 6 rioters. Not to mention his anti-Semitic podcaster pal and performing propaganda services for the Russians and consulting for the Chinese.
The rest
I won’t even bother with Pete Hegseth. He has already sold out the Ukrainians and put the US in Russian President Putin’s pocket. No other Defense Secretary in my lifetime would not have resigned rather than follow Trump’s instruction to do that.
Sad to say, Marco Rubio, who knows better, is going along with dismantling USAID. He is also flogging Trump’s nonsense about Panama, Greenland, and Gaza.
Linda McMahon, Trump’s nominee to be the last Education Secretary, is telling Congress closing the Department will require Congressional approval. She’ll forget all about that once confirmed and go along with Elon Musk’s firing of 90% of the staff.
This really is a cabinet of horrors. The most unqualified people serving the least serious president in the history of the Union. Almost all now approved in the Senate of the United States with almost 100% Republican support. And almost 100% Democratic opposition.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump reinvents the Foreign Service wheel
In an executive order issued yesterday, President Trump said the State Department has to implement the President’s foreign policy. Employees who don’t can be fired, he said. Secretary of State Rubio is tasked with reforming the Department to make sure the President’s will is done.
I have no objection to this in principle. It simply reiterates what I have long understood the role of the State Department to be. The problem isn’t with the objectives. It’s with Trump’s mistaken assumptions.
The reality
The assumption is that Foreign Service officers mostly dislike Trump and won’t implement his policies. The dislike for his policies is real. It will be hard to find a Foreign Service officer who wants the US to take over and own Gaza. Few would support tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Canada as the 51st state is not something American diplomats will want to negotiate. Ditto taking over the Panama Canal or Greenland.
Nevertheless, the mandate and tradition of the Service is clear: professional diplomats do what the President wants them to do. They will sometimes express their dissent, either informally or through a formal Dissent Channel message to the Secretary. But having stated their views, they do what they are told. Or resign. Or seek transfer to another job where the conflict does not arise.
I have been in situations where my personal and professional views differed from what I was supposed to do. I and others did not agree with Dick Holbrooke’s plan to end the Bosnian war. We objected to dividing the country into two ethnically defined entities. We spoke up in internal meetings and even appealed against the end-of-war ceasefire to the top of the State Department.
Overruled, I then did my best to contribute at Dayton to the outcome the President wanted. A German colleague and I negotiated the first agreement reached there. I also spent six months working hard in Bosnia to implement the divided solution I had opposed. And I spent another year supervising State Department intelligence analysts who identified threats to that outcome.
The consequences
The executive order reiterating in stentorian terms what is already understood will frighten some Foreign Service officers. They will be reluctant to speak up in dissent. Some will ask for transfers or resign. Others will have good job offers and take them. The President intends to intimidate. He will succeed.
Whether this is a problem depends on degree. The attempted firing of virtually all USAID officers is going to sharply reduce American capacity to provide foreign assistance. Trump apparently intends that. It will also reduce the capacity of those remaining to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement. That is a serious mistake.
But the longer term problem is recruitment. The Foreign Service needs experienced people with deep knowledge of other countries, their languages, their interests, and their cultures. Future classes of incoming diplomats will be sympathetic to the President’s America First agenda. They will fill the roles others have vacated. That is only natural. But that is not a way to get the experienced professionals diplomacy needs.
Yes, State needs cutting
I am not a die hard defender of the Foreign Service, the State Department, or USAID. I was Deputy Chief of Mission at US Embassy Rome in the early 1990s. After dissenting, I implemented budget-induced cuts of 10% of our Italian and American staff. It was painful to the people involved (and to me), but it did not seriously impair the Embassy.
I now believe the cut should have been much larger, starting with the excessive non-State Department staff. The US mission in Italy had 36 different agencies of the US government represented. That is typical of over-size US embassies. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is calling for cuts in “national” (i.e. non-US) staff. That is the wrong end of the stick. The Americans are much more expensive. The national staff can be cut more readily once the American staff they support is reduced.
Yes, State needs cutting. But you have to start in the right place. Reinventing the wheel won’t get it done.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rescue USAID and refugee assistance now!
I signed on to this letter addressed to the Senate and House leadership with dozens of former colleagues and friends:
The Honorable John R. Thune, Senate Majority Leader
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, Senate Minority Leader
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader
United States Capitol, Washington, DC
Dear Senators Thune and Schumer, and Representatives Johnson and Jeffries:
As former U.S. government officials who served in national security and humanitarian positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations, we write to ask you to take all steps in your power to urge rescission of the Trump administration executive orders and directives aimed at freezing U.S. foreign assistance and dismantling USAID. These directives inflict irreparable damage on hundreds of millions of people around the world, harm Americans by crippling our ability to protect U.S. citizens from disease and other harms, and invite China and other competitors to fill the gap we have created, thereby increasing their power and influence at our expense.
In the some 200 countries where hundreds of millions of people have benefited from U.S. aid, the bulk of such support has been economic and humanitarian assistance. When Presidents, Cabinet Secretaries, and Members of Congress are welcomed in countries of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and South Asia, and Europe, the concrete manifestations of U.S. government support have been the humanitarian and development programs supported by USAID and the State Department’s humanitarian operations.
These operations represent less than one percent of the federal budget. At the same time, U.S. aid has amounted to between a quarter and a third of global assistance, roughly the same as the U.S. share of GDP among wealthy countries. It has given the United States enormous capacity for influence, while making our country the global leader in efforts to reduce human suffering and abject poverty.
These are the programs that President Trump and Elon Musk are decimating, as we write, while depriving the U.S. Congress of its constitutional and legislative roles.
It is difficult to capture in one letter the scope of what the Financial Times has accurately called the “willful sabotage of U.S. soft power.” But the human suffering that these cut-offs have caused is catastrophic and heartbreaking. Elon Musk’s measures have halted critical and highly effective life-saving initiatives, including programs that provide clean water to infants; healthcare to mothers who are expecting; food, shelter, and refuge for those fleeing persecution and disaster; and life-saving support to those suffering from disease.
In Kenya, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere, aid to survivors of torture was stopped in its tracks. Children and adult victims of war and terror who have relied on the United States have been left without care. And in poorer countries around the world, thousands of women and girls will die in the next 90 days due to complications of childbirth that might otherwise have been avoided through interventions funded by Congress and administered by USAID.
Even the highly visible PEPFAR program to combat AIDS, started by President George W. Bush and responsible for saving some 25 million lives, was frozen. Clinics were closed and HIV sufferers were denied access to antiretrovirals. While some services were resumed, crucial programs remained suspended and millions are affected.
In our own country, the suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has led to tragic stories of thousands who were ready to travel to the United States, including Afghans who helped to support U.S. goals in their country. This modest and carefully managed program has revitalized declining communities and strengthened the U.S. economy, and persuaded other countries to do their fair share.
The tragic stories go on and on and on, from the curtailing of remarkable U.S. efforts to limit the spread of tuberculosis and eradicate polio, to the ending of programs that have built local economies and have thereby discouraged migration to the United States, to the abrupt halt of the USAID-supported Famine Early Warning System (FEWS), the gold standard for anticipating and monitoring famines worldwide.
Due to horror stories shared with Members of Congress about the impact of the funding freeze, Trump administration officials have added some exemptions to the ban. But this piecemeal effort is a wholly inefficient, inadequate, and cynical way to proceed with reform. It has merely left hundreds of millions around the world in disbelief at how the United States could act in such an arbitrary and cavalier manner.
History will not look kindly on this avoidable tragedy – for the hundreds of millions in need, for U.S. leadership and moral authority around the world, and for U.S. national security, as global competitors like China and Russia rush to fill the gap we have created. It will be part of the legacy of this Congress if not reversed.
We implore you to urge President Trump to rescind the freeze, which curtails U.S. efforts to provide critical humanitarian aid and development support around the world, and undermines the Constitutional authority of Congress. In particular, we ask that you urge the President to resume the funding and operations of USAID and its overseas offices, as well as the humanitarian programs of the Department of State.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace in our time will bring more war
Pete Hegseth announced a major change in US policy on Ukraine today. The most unqualified Defense Secretary ever offered to appease Russia by
- Ending US support for Ukraine’s membership in NATO;
- Abandoning Ukraine’s war goal of regaining control of all its sovereign territory;
- Anticipating an end to most US assistance to Ukraine;
- Excluding US troops from any post-war peacekeeping force;
- Asking European allies to provide such a force without a NATO Article 5 guarantee.
This gives Russian President Putin everything he hopes for except direct and immediate control over the government in Kyiv.
This is not peace through strength
Hegseth claimed he was proposing peace through strength. But that is pure illusion. He is pulling the rug out from underneath Ukrainian President Zelensky. At best (from Ukraine’s perspective), his remarks would make Ukraine a buffer state between NATO and Russia.
But maintaining Ukraine as a buffer state would be impossible. The Europeans would need to monitor a confrontation zone between Russia and Ukraine that is more than 1200 miles long. Kyiv, abandoned by the US, would want nuclear weapons to ensure Ukraine’s survival. That Russia would not allow.
Another Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory would be just a matter of time. And in the meanwhile Russia would be doing everything it could to bring down Zelensky. That wouldn’t be difficult if he agreed to anything like what Hegseth proposes.
I hardly need mention that partition of Ukraine as Hegseth proposes will have a dramatic impact in the Balkans. Serbia will try to grab territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Kosovo. American and European troops will be at risk.
Worse: appeasement of Russia in Ukraine will be a signal to Beijing that Washington won’t defend Taiwan. Some of that damage may already have been done with Hegseth’s speech. He has undermined the deterrence he claims to find vital.
Real peace through strength is the alternative?
The Biden Administration pursued a Goldilocks policy on Ukraine. Enough support to make Russia’s territorial gains slow and costly. But not enough to provoke Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, which Putin has contemplated in the event Moscow faced calamity.
That worked well enough given its objectives. But it wasn’t enough–nor did it intend–for Ukraine to win the war. Kyiv, like Moscow, is struggling with manpower shortages. The only way for it to win the war is with overwhelming technological superiority. Ukraine’s forces have developed a lot of their own weapons and tactics. But they will need more unqualified US and European support to win.
The alternative to Hegseth’s appeasement is to provide that support. That would be real peace through strength.
A Ukraine win would strengthen the West
The implications of Kyiv winning are good for the US and Europe. Moscow would then need to abandon its imperial ambitions. Putin might survive using repression, but only as a much-diminished figure at home and abroad. Russia’s economy and demography will need rebuilding. It will be at least another generation before Moscow can threaten a neighbor.
Reasonable people in Moscow would quickly switch the position on Ukrainian membership in NATO. They would come to see that as the best guarantee of a Ukraine without nuclear weapons. They know better than anyone else that NATO membership has kept Germany non-nuclear.
Europe would gain enormously from the opening of a peacetime free market with Ukraine reconstructing itself. The US would get the privileged access to Ukrainian rare minerals it seeks.
RSS - Posts
