The howls of indignation about President Trump’s foreign policy and his threats made to Panama, Mexico, Canada, Greenland/Denmark, freeloading NATO countries, and, of course, President Zelensky, tell us a great deal about why today’s European leaders are incapable of anything like statesmanship. They were warned repeatedly, but they did not listen. Trump’s prioritising of peace in Ukraine, achieved by concessions to Russia, was clear before he was elected. Europe had had the chance to negotiate with Putin, but apart from Viktor Orban, no one tried. Europe (and Biden) provided just enough help to Ukraine to allow it to lose the war slowly, rather than quickly, with thousands dying in the process. It is no surprise that the US now feels that Europe has nothing to offer by way of useful suggestions.
US foreign policy on Ukraine and British enthusiasm
It is quite possible that the United States would welcome the deployment of European forces in Ukraine in the wake of an eventual peace deal. Why not? If the Europeans are foolish enough to put their troops in an indefensible position, US thinking might be, it could teach them an overdue lesson. The US Defence Secretary has clearly stated that any such force will not have the benefit of protection under article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (see below). The Poles, who have most reason to protect Ukraine, will not get involved. The German commitment to sending ground troops, even under the fragile new leadership of a Chancellor Merz, is doubtful. The French, who nowadays are good at military parades but less effective in military action, might send some troops. Only the British are enthusiastic, both the Government and (so far) the public.
Current British foreign policy provides a useful guide for other nations, including Croatia. Everything that Britain nowadays does offers an example of what no sensible government of any country ought ever to do.
Dressed up in ill-fitting military kit for the occasion, the UK’s Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, announced that British troops were ready go to Ukraine to keep the peace. Starmer saw it as a gesture, mainly to please Trump, whom he was scheduled to meet. Only later, presumably when his military advisers heard what he had done, did Starmer realise that the forces he proposed to send would be afforded no protection from the US, that they could not withstand any Russian assault, and so Britain must in that eventuality withdraw them fast, or risk them becoming hostages, or in the last resort threaten a nuclear response.
The order provided in Europe by NATO in question
The foolishness of the European – including British – political class is still on show. But the world they and we live in is now different. It is important to understand why.
The biggest change to the world that Trump’s arrival in the White House brought is not his undiplomatic rhetoric. It is not the much-discussed withdrawal of the US from global engagement – which is not going to happen. It is not the US focus on China, which has been a constant for some years. It is not even what is now going to happen in Ukraine. There was no way that Ukraine could regain its lost territory, most of it at least. It has already lost the war, though not been crushed entirely.
The biggest change to the world is that the order provided in Europe by NATO is in question. This seems something that the White House has not fully understood. It should be seriously but tactfully brought home to the Administration. Washington’s attention is exclusively focused now on Ukraine. But Moscow’s attention is certainly not. Putin knows that his war has failed, for the present anyway, and he will be thinking about other points upon which to press.
A line must be drawn
Russia is not a global superpower. It is, though, a regional superpower, with historic ambitions and a sphere of influence which stretch beyond its present borders – precisely how far can be debated. Countries which are outside NATO, and which fall partly or wholly within that Russian sphere, face a difficult future. They will not be admitted into NATO. But it is better to adjoin an orderly zone than to be surrounded by chaos, so they too need NATO to endure. It is not in America’s interests, either, to have constant small wars fought on the Eastern margin of Europe, or to have Russia meddling ever further beyond its traditional sphere. A line must be drawn, a deterrent must apply, and NATO, therefore, has a role – if not now the primary role – within US foreign policy.
The fate of Ukraine in a terrible way shows why NATO matters.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, we should remember, states:
“An armed attack against one or more of [the signatories] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the UN, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic Area”.
Article 5 especially important to Croatia
That is the guarantee that Ukraine lacked. Croatia, as a NATO member since 2009, benefits enormously from that guarantee.
President Trump has complained – with justice – about the failure of the Europeans (with the notable exception of the Poles) to contribute sufficiently to the cost of their defence. He wants a 5 per cent target – not as currently the official benchmark of 2 per cent, which some countries anyway do not meet.
Bloated European domestic spending programmes, notably on health and welfare, and low economic growth – caused by stagnating productivity – mean that achieving that target is going to require painful cuts. But the new realism introduced by Trump – along with the new opportunities for Russia to make trouble elsewhere – both require that each of NATO’s European members which wants to be taken seriously must radically reshape its priorities. The US Administration will formulate its attitude to them according to their performance in doing so.
Article 5 is especially important to Croatia, perched as it is at the edge of Europe and impacted by threats to stability among its neighbours, principally because of the doctrine of Srpski svet. Croatia must prove to Washington that, like Poland, it takes its defence seriously.
The protection of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina
European-wide defence projects are not going to materialise now, despite German promises, any more than they have over the years since the Maastricht Treaty first raised the spectre of Europe as a military power. Britain and France will never share control of their nuclear weapons; the Germans will never again create effective armed forces; and there is no European common political will, because there is no European common identity. No one will die for Europe.
The trans-Atlantic link with Washington and the building of mutual trust which makes the article 5 guarantee credible is one crucial aspect of Croatia’s security requirements in the changed world. The other is to use the increase required in military resources to make Croatia a dominant regional military force.
Croatia must be able to protect Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It should be willing and able to establish strong security ties with countries that are threatened by Croatia’s only potential enemy, namely Serbia. It should, at the same time, join with others in Central Europe now considering security arrangements that bolster confidence in a part of Europe to which Croatia historically belongs and which consists of wealthy but small states that want neither confrontation with Russia nor domination by it. Some new diplomatic approach will in that context be required to Hungary – for too long ignored – a failure that has encouraged Budapest to champion Serbian interests to a degree which potentially threatens Croatia, but which also yields no palpable benefit to Hungary either.
Nothing is more vulnerable to war than tourism
The final aspect of the new world that Donald Trump has brought into existence is the direct linkage between national economic interests and national security interests, what might be called neo-mercantilism. Nothing is more vulnerable to war, or terrorism, than tourism, and Croatia in the new era is far too dependent on it. There is an alternative. It entails, just to list the headings rather than to spell out the details: the strengthening of home industry; provision of incentives for inward investment by foreign companies; a more interventionist approach to agriculture, linked to promoting self-sufficiency in food; the exploitation and development of Croatia’s already strong position as a secure energy hub for the region; and finally a demographic strategy focused on bringing back Croats who have left the country to work abroad, which must be backed up by higher wages and by an end to reliance on cheap imported labour.
These objectives would have the same goal as Donald Trump’s policies for America. That is, the assertion of the national interest in all respects and by every means available. With the prospect of a disorderly future, which may impinge on Croatia sooner than it thinks, the need for such thinking is urgent.
Author: Robin Harris, the President of COK and former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
