BERLIN — The past two weeks have been tough for Atlanticists in Europe who still think we shouldn’t give up on the United States. President Trump almost wrecked a NATO summit, he offended his hosts in Britain, and he called the European Union a “foe” of the United States, all the while cozying up to Vladimir Putin, a “good competitor.”
For months, Europeans concerned about the president’s statements have been reassured by American friends: Ignore the tweets, focus on what the administration does, and trust our checks and balances. That made some sense. Senior cabinet members like the secretary of defense have remained committed to the liberal international order and to America’s alliances and partnerships. Congress has strongly supported NATO. And American troops still guarantee Europe’s security.
But in international relations, it’s not only deeds that matter; words also do, especially the American president’s.
Let’s face it: Mr. Trump’s core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the mid-1940s. He believes America is getting a bad deal from its European allies. He expresses admiration for autocrats like Kim Jong-un and Mr. Putin, while reserving his most acidic comments for democratic partners like Germany’s Angela Merkel and Canada’s Justin Trudeau. He represents the opposite of liberal internationalism.
That sends Europe a sad message: The era of America’s benign hegemony may be over, with Europe extremely ill prepared.
On July 11 and 12, Mr. Trump undercut a NATO summit that was yielding results: reaffirming a goal for members to strengthen the alliance by spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on the military by 2024. While European military spending has been rising for some time, Mr. Trump was correct in saying that some members, including Germany, aren’t doing enough. He also has legitimate concerns about trade imbalances.
Still, his mischaracterization of the goal as “dues” owed to America makes it harder for European leaders to ask their voters for increased military spending. And his bullying comments led Europeans to suspect he might be more interested in leaving the alliance than in leading it.
Such implied threats attack the foundation of the alliance: the idea of solidarity and commitment to one another’s security. Americans tell us Mr. Trump can’t leave NATO without Senate consent — a debatable notion that misses the point. Any doubt about America’s commitment hurts the credibility of NATO’s deterrence.