It is difficult to exaggerate how global policy has changed in recent weeks. NATO is in its last breath. The international order kept in the United States is a slight access to influenza far from expiration. Europeans believe that US President Donald Trump has just signed Eastern Europe in the Russians again. As the people of these regions say, reflecting the Munich Agreement and the Yalta Conference, decisions are now “about us without us”. All this is a big bluff is waiting to see. But a father who threatens to get out of his children will never take advantage of the same degree of confidence again.
In the middle of the whole stupid and head of the head, a large part of the European media and comments were completely ignorant of the reason why Washington apparently thinks that it must abandon Europe: to focus on Indo-Pacific. The events of the past few weeks will be claimed as great victories by Elbridge Colby, now under-secretary for Pentagon politics, which has been lobbying for years for America to come out of Europe and embarks on Asian security. Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told Europeans that “striking strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being mainly focused on Europe security” and that Washington now focused on China, which has “the capacity and intention to threaten our homeland and our main national interests in Indo-Pacific”.
Perhaps it is only at the edges, but we detect a little joy from certain people in Asia. Sorry, Europe, but now it’s our time to bask in the protective glow of America. A few Schadenfreude is also probably at hand; Many Southeast Asians, in particular, have favorable views of Vladimir Putin and Russia and were not too satisfied to be informed by the Biden administration and Europeans that they were contrary to the ethics of not worrying more events in Eastern Europe. I heard that during the recent Honolulu Defense forum, a South Korean delegate suggested that “the deletion of an agreement with Russia will allow America to focus on the deterrent of the power of China”.
There are reasons to be skeptical. Capitulation in Ukraine does not retain Putin’s imperial reasons, so it will not be the end of violence in Europe. America really only comes out of Europe when it leaves NATO, which it does not yet have. So, like President Barack Obama kept a toe in the Middle East while his “Asian pivot” was an excuse to get out of this region, America will continue to be brought back to European security problems. There is also the case that a transatlantic president replace Trump, all this could be reversed. Asian allies would be preferred not to bet on the sustainability of this new “pivot”.
More importantly, can anyone deny the following statement with confidence? Trump is ready to abandon American European allies during a continental crisis, but he would not do the same with American Asian allies. It becomes quite tedious to constantly see people hang on to “transactional” as a comforting adjective for Trump’s foreign policy. In reality, Trump is a pathological pacifist who, for all his false nationalism, cannot understand the love of his homeland and why someone would risk his life to defend him. He cannot therefore understand why someone would go to war to defend himself against an invader or to fight for his freedom.
Like pacifists before him, in particular the variant of the 1930s, this has turned into an unhealthy fascination for imperialists and tyrants. For Trump, patriotism, the love of culture or traditions, camaraderie and the desire for freedom are only simple distractions of the goal of life: to earn money. In a revealing anecdote, John Kelly, his former Chief of the White House Staff, recalled with Trump next to the tomb of Kelly’s son, killed in Afghanistan. Trump apparently turned to him and said, “I don’t understand. What was there for them?
Because he does not “understand”, he assumes that everyone must be motivated by the same basic reasons as his family. Politicians lead their people to wars for profits or personal power. The soldiers must be “binding” (his description of the Americans who died during the Second World War) for thinking that they really fight for something bigger. As everything is a scam, just sign a peace agreement (as unfair) and continue to make money!
If Trump had said that America left the city and it was now up to Europeans to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, if he had said that the Ukrainians could continue to fight, but they should now pay America for weapons – it would have been a bitter but at least digestible pill. But what is it? Trump insists that Europeans are now responsible for their own security while America (without European participation) is directly in charge of peace talks (surrender interventions, more precisely) with Putin, which will create even more instability in Eastern Europe.
In addition, Trump wants to remove Ukraine from the table so that he can repair relations with Moscow. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, told his Russian counterpart “incredible opportunities that exist to associate with the Russians” if they could simply have the war of Ukraine. What opportunities? Washington has annoyed most of Europe (US exports to the European Union were worth $ 370 billion in 2023) to repair relations with Russia (US exports to Russia were worth $ 6.4 billion before the start of the Ukraine war).
Let’s say that I am wrong, that Trump is really transactional and that American protection can simply be purchased. But you mainly buy something without price. These are unexplored waters, and who knows how much will the protection of America cost? Washington would he be held to his alliance treated if the Philippines bought a handful of American planes and advanced weapons each year? Would Manila need to spend $ 500 million a year, $ 1 billion a year or $ 5 billion a year on American defense equipment? Is it $ 1 billion this year but $ 2 billion next year? Would that mean that Manila has signed its nickel and copper reserves in the United States? Will Taipei have to give his semiconductor monopoly to Washington? (Trump apparently said he wanted TSMC Taiwan to take a majority participation in Intel fleas factories.) What is Vietnam?
Not only is there no price, but there is no delivery guarantee. Manila could spend $ 10 billion and sign its natural resources, but only when the Rockets start to pilot Will Washington say if it will stand by the Philippines. In addition, something that is almost entirely neglected is that when the relationship becomes more transactional, the junior partner often becomes less important. Imagine that Taiwan agrees to reduce his monopoly on advanced semiconductors and give a larger share in the United States, for example by moving some of its operations in America. In doing so, does it become more or less important for America to protect Taiwan? The reason why Taiwan counts so much right away is that it houses a semiconductor industry that Washington cannot allow Beijing to get their hands. But move a considerable part of this industry in the United States, and there are fewer reasons for Washington to fight for Taiwan.
At the fundamental level, transactional diplomacy must be based on a kind of confidence: you will Get what you pay. But do you have more or less Trust him after watching Trump abandon the oldest allies in America? In addition, if, as Trump insinuated, Ukraine was stupid by trying to defend himself against a more powerful invader, the Taiwanese and the Philippins be even more stupid by trying to defend himself against China, who has a much more powerful army than Russia? It is also a more prosperous invader than Russia.
Manila and Taipei should pay much more to Trump America to protect himself from a country (China) who can offer Trump much more than they can. The Philippines could spend 100 billion dollars more on American imports and defense equipment, but Beijing can still outbid it. (Note that Trump imposed more prices on China And Wouldn’t the top Xinping conclude a large trade agreement.) Wouldn’t a transactional leader easily accept an agreement with China and not look in the other direction while he colonized the Southern China Sea and invades Taiwan?
I took a lot of words to get here, but knowing it all really helps a government in Southeast Asia? After all, what alternatives is there?