What is the reason for the rift between the United States and Europe? Analysis

US Vice President Jay Dee Vance once again criticized Europe for its economic and migration policies. He stated that the Old World should not remain an American vassal and should ensure its own security. Why the United States is going to break the established relations with Europe after the Second World War and what it threatens — in the analysis of "Izvestia".

What Vance stated

• On April 14, J.D. Vance, in an interview with UnHerd, raised the topic of relations between Europe and the United States, once again stating that they need to be reviewed. He pointed out that the current dependence of European countries on the United States in security matters no longer meets Washington's interests. Vance stressed that the security infrastructure in Europe should no longer be subsidized by the American side.

• Although Vance noted the successes of Britain, France, and Poland in ensuring their security, he said of the rest of Europe that its leaders were not investing enough in defense and needed to fix this situation. Among other things, the US Vice president noted that it was time for Europe to "stop being a vassal of the United States" and that it was unprofitable for it to remain in this position.

Vance's statements about Europe were reminiscent of his speech at the Munich Security Conference, in which he sharply criticized the Old World (we wrote more about his landmark speech here). He accused Europe of moving away from democracy and the principles of freedom of speech, and at the same time made it clear that it was time for Europe to start the process of reorientation from the United States to itself on the issue of ensuring security. This was a departure from the established trend 80 years ago.

What Vance wanted to say

In his last interview, Vance, speaking of Europe as a vassal, did not deny that the United States continues to view Europe as its ally. However, in this way, he stressed that allied relations imply an equal position of the two sides, that they bear equal obligations to each other. Vance opposes the United States bearing the brunt of security costs, as is the case now.

• The White House now does not want Europe to refer to the position of the United States in every possible situation or urge them to respond to security issues. Since the new US administration has declared that its values differ from those adopted in Europe, the previous relations should also be reviewed in the field of security so that they no longer bind the United States and interfere with the protection of its interests.

Enemy of my enemy: who Trump supports in Europe

The U.S. president-elect continues to rally allies on the continent

• At the same time, the United States is not yet inclined to completely abandon its previous commitments and leave Europe without its military influence. Talk of a willingness to leave a foreign continent should be perceived as a demand for fair payment for their efforts, and not as an intention to leave Europe without any protection at all. Although such a gap would be beneficial to the United States from a purely financial point of view, they would prefer that Europe simply reimburse the costs incurred by the American side.

• This is confirmed by the fact that the United States sets a specific "price tag" — NATO members should increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. This applies to both the production of weapons and the maintenance of troops. Washington only wants Europe not to use any special conditions, which the current administration sees no reason for.

Why does the United States treat Europe this way

Vance's demand for Europe to think about its own security and make an equal contribution with the United States is changing the disposition of global relations. However, this is not something new for American politicians. Historically, the United States has been more averse to Europe, pursuing a policy of isolationism. It was seen as a troubled region, forever unleashing wars and preventing the rest of the world from developing peacefully. Europe, on the other hand, treated the United States like a younger brother, condescendingly assessing its statehood, history and place in the world.

• The change of positions occurred only after the Second World War, when the United States took a leading position, and Europe did not have the strength to do anything against it. At that moment, Americans felt like a great nation that cared about everything that was happening in the world. However, the isolationist principle has not disappeared anywhere, and fluctuations between the two directions of foreign policy have firmly entered the internal American discourse. Now the pendulum has swung back towards non-interference, and much more strongly than expected in Europe, which is why Vance's words are perceived as something bold and threatening.

• The expert community notes that the current US attitude towards Europe is caused by a shift in focus to the Pacific region. American politicians consider this area as the highest priority. Previously, the United States saw the USSR and Russia as its main antagonist, and therefore their attention was so focused on Europe. Now their main rival is China. If Washington is ready to provide gratuitous military assistance to anyone, it will most likely be the countries of Asia and Oceania, which will become a kind of outpost for the United States in the event of a significant escalation.

Petty rhetoric: how the US and the EU have switched public tactics

The Trump administration, unlike the Biden team, does not talk about "Russian aggression" at all

In addition to the purely practical reasons for the US reorientation towards Europe, there are also ideological ones. The ideology of Trumpism does not imply that such a neoliberal globalist entity as Europe in its current form can become an American ally (we wrote here about what this ideology is and how Vance represents it abroad). While in the Old World they are resisting the arrival of extreme right-wing forces, in the United States such forces have just entered the White House and do not want their ideological rivals on the other side of the Atlantic to enjoy their support. No matter how American isolationism manifests itself, its supporters will not calmly watch as Brussels blocks the right turn.

What awaits Europe

• If the warnings of the White House are not read correctly in Brussels and transatlantic relations break down, the consequences for Europe will be enormous. Its economic strength after World War II was based on the confidence that it could rely on the United States for security and have a huge American market.

• Without this foundation, economic ties with the United States will be severed, and they have already suffered significantly due to tariffs. Europe will be cut off from its key market, lose technical cooperation, and undermine its energy security, which is no less important to it than its military-strategic one. The subsequent crisis phenomena may provoke a rightward lurch, which mainstream political parties in Europe are trying to contain. Voters will turn their eyes to the right, seeing in them a force capable of reaching an agreement with the US administration.

• The fact that Europe remains not a single entity, but a community of individual states, will help to postpone the onset of fundamental changes. The United States is building relations with the European Union as a whole, with its individual members, and with countries that are not part of the bloc. Vance himself noted that he has no complaints about some allies in Europe, so the United States will be able to continue constructive cooperation with them. In such a situation, Europe may benefit from the irregularities in its political landscape, which it has diligently avoided in recent decades.

Swing at the euro: The EU has decided to hit the Trump electorate with tariffs

Republican states may suffer greatly from retaliatory duties from Brussels

• It is possible that there will not be a complete breakup after all - in the context of current geopolitical tensions, the American elites will not dare to take too radical actions. But they may gradually sabotage European initiatives, support nationally oriented politicians, and build relationships bypassing EU institutions. The Ukrainian crisis is setting a certain dynamic, and the United States can also take a number of actions in relation to it, which Europe, which does not reduce its support for Kiev, may take painfully.

During the preparation of the material, Izvestia interviewed:

• Natalia Eremina, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor of the Department of European Studies at the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University;
• Lev Sokolshchik is a leading researcher at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.