Post-Munich: Europe's Strategy for Dealing with Trump
Last week, the continent faced its deepest anxieties regarding the new president while also acknowledging the necessity for a fresh approach.
TroibNews 
MUNICH — The week that European anxieties about Donald Trump’s America began to materialize occurred during the annual Munich Security Conference, where leaders gathered in Bavaria. The event often resembled a collective therapy session, as described by the president of Latvia on Sunday.
European officials were understandably in need of reassurance, or perhaps a few local beers.
At every turn, the Trump administration's moves only validated Europe's fears about the new president: instability, extremism, protectionism, and a troubling leniency towards Vladimir Putin. Let’s break these down.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initiated a tumultuous week for the continent. During his first official visit to Europe, Hegseth asserted that any discussions aimed at ending Russia’s assault on Ukraine would not restore the nation’s pre-2014 borders or move it closer to NATO. He went on to suggest that the U.S. military presence in Europe was not guaranteed indefinitely and that Europeans should not "make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever."
This sparked confusion and anger among European officials.
Although Hegseth slightly retracted his comments, Trump backed him up, leaving even some Republicans “disturbed,” as Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker remarked. Officials wondered why Hegseth would concede to Putin's demands and hint at American withdrawal before cease-fire negotiations had even started.
However, Europeans found some solace in the notion that only Trump speaks for Trump.
As Europeans tried to process Hegseth’s shocking statements, Vice President JD Vance made an appearance at the conference, intended to reassure America’s traditional allies of the strength of the transatlantic alliance and U.S. commitment to Europe’s security. In reality, he delivered a different message entirely.
Instead of providing reassurance, Vance sidestepped Ukraine, suggesting that Europe’s greatest challenge was internal, and that they needed to overcome their political divisions by being more accepting of far-right parties. This comment came across as oddly misplaced, given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the historical context of far-right movements.
The following day, Chancellor Olaf Scholz addressed the conference, recalling a visit to Dachau with Vance, emphasizing that “never again means never again,” which underlined the importance of keeping far-right parties like AFD from gaining power.
Friedrich Merz, leader of Germany’s conservative opposition, also criticized Vance, calling his remarks hypocritical. “We would never kick the news agency out of the press room of our chancellor,” he said, referencing the White House's restriction on the Associated Press.
From a certain perspective, Vance’s comments reflected political self-interest by avoiding firm stances on Ukraine, an approach likely aimed to stay aligned with Trump’s unpredictable policies.
Meanwhile, Trump initiated a new economic conflict by recommending reciprocal tariffs to match those imposed by other countries, including those with value-added taxes common in Europe. “It’s fair to all,” Trump claimed, insisting no other nation could rightfully protest.
As anticipated, many countries did voice their concerns, leading EU chief Ursula von der Leyen to promise “proportional and clear countermeasures.”
The most alarming aspect, however, was Trump’s candid reflections on Putin. He described a lengthy call with the Russian leader, a war criminal, noting that both “believe very strongly” in “COMMON SENSE,” and revealing plans to explore further negotiations to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Subsequently, it was reported these discussions could take place in Saudi Arabia, with Ukraine claiming they had not been invited.
This obviously raised alarms across Europe. Just the previous week, Trump had suggested re-admitting Russia to the G7, claimed “Russia won’t allow” Ukraine to join NATO, and stated that “a lot of people were to blame” for the ongoing war, even suggesting Ukraine's NATO aspirations contributed to the situation.
Trump's refusal to condemn Putin for invading a sovereign nation during negotiations drew scrutiny. His recurrent comment that the war wouldn’t have occurred if he were president suggests a troubling neutrality towards the aggressor’s actions.
By the weekend’s conclusion, both Europeans and Americans were left pondering how to make Trump more amenable to supporting Ukraine. The prevailing notion was to negotiate a deal that might see the U.S. compensated for its military aid by leveraging Ukraine’s natural resources. Senator Lindsey Graham mentioned that discussing Ukraine's rare earth materials during a golf outing seemed to pique Trump’s interest.
However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed the desire for more robust security assurances and hesitated at an initial proposal offering military aid in exchange for a share of Ukraine's rare earth minerals.
On a positive note for Europe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s engagement garnered appreciation, particularly when he agreed to sign a G7 communique asserting unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.
During a private meeting in the ornate Holnstein Palace, Rubio explained to diplomats that the length of Trump’s call with Putin primarily stemmed from translation issues, urging them not to focus on NATO membership for Ukraine.
The consensus among U.S. and European officials was a concern over Rubio’s longevity and influence in an administration where Trump holds the ultimate decision-making power.
One G7 diplomat’s remark highlighted the urgency: how can we keep Rubio around?
A more pressing question emerged: what measures could pacify Trump?
As in his previous presidency, a familiar answer arose: increase defense spending, which David Petraeus, a retired general, deemed beneficial both substantively and politically.
“It’s the right thing to do,” Petraeus asserted. “It’s also the smart thing to do. It’s wonderful when you have two of those together.”
Some European leaders wasted no time, with Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković announcing a fivefold increase in defense spending since taking office.
Nico Lange, a former German Defense Ministry official, advocated for establishing a multi-country European defense force in Ukraine to decisively counter Russian threats.
“After 11 years of wake-up calls, the next wake-up call for the Europeans will be an air raid siren,” Lange cautioned.
Other leaders acknowledged that merely enhancing defenses was insufficient to maintain Trump’s support; they must demonstrate to him that continuing the transatlantic alliance serves his interests.
Alexander Stubb, the Finnish president, articulated this need, suggesting Europe must show its commitment to Ukraine negotiations. “You need to show that you have skin in the game and I think Europe hasn’t had a strategy so far,” he noted.
Stubb believed Finland could highlight its icebreaker technology, which aligns with Trump’s interests in Arctic affairs, as well as its telecommunications capabilities, emphasizing that Nokia is not Chinese-owned like Huawei.
When asked about his conversations with Rubio in Munich, Stubb revealed he had already spoken with Trump twice and that the president expressed enthusiasm about Finland’s icebreaker designs.
“This is a different administration, they have a different approach, and we in Europe shouldn’t over-dramatize the situation; we should be calm, cool, and collected,” Stubb remarked.
Easier said than done, perhaps, especially for him. Stubb has a unique connection with Trump, having studied in the U.S. and been a Division One college golfer. He clearly had a discussion with Trump about playing golf during those calls.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
European officials were understandably in need of reassurance, or perhaps a few local beers.
At every turn, the Trump administration's moves only validated Europe's fears about the new president: instability, extremism, protectionism, and a troubling leniency towards Vladimir Putin. Let’s break these down.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initiated a tumultuous week for the continent. During his first official visit to Europe, Hegseth asserted that any discussions aimed at ending Russia’s assault on Ukraine would not restore the nation’s pre-2014 borders or move it closer to NATO. He went on to suggest that the U.S. military presence in Europe was not guaranteed indefinitely and that Europeans should not "make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever."
This sparked confusion and anger among European officials.
Although Hegseth slightly retracted his comments, Trump backed him up, leaving even some Republicans “disturbed,” as Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker remarked. Officials wondered why Hegseth would concede to Putin's demands and hint at American withdrawal before cease-fire negotiations had even started.
However, Europeans found some solace in the notion that only Trump speaks for Trump.
As Europeans tried to process Hegseth’s shocking statements, Vice President JD Vance made an appearance at the conference, intended to reassure America’s traditional allies of the strength of the transatlantic alliance and U.S. commitment to Europe’s security. In reality, he delivered a different message entirely.
Instead of providing reassurance, Vance sidestepped Ukraine, suggesting that Europe’s greatest challenge was internal, and that they needed to overcome their political divisions by being more accepting of far-right parties. This comment came across as oddly misplaced, given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the historical context of far-right movements.
The following day, Chancellor Olaf Scholz addressed the conference, recalling a visit to Dachau with Vance, emphasizing that “never again means never again,” which underlined the importance of keeping far-right parties like AFD from gaining power.
Friedrich Merz, leader of Germany’s conservative opposition, also criticized Vance, calling his remarks hypocritical. “We would never kick the news agency out of the press room of our chancellor,” he said, referencing the White House's restriction on the Associated Press.
From a certain perspective, Vance’s comments reflected political self-interest by avoiding firm stances on Ukraine, an approach likely aimed to stay aligned with Trump’s unpredictable policies.
Meanwhile, Trump initiated a new economic conflict by recommending reciprocal tariffs to match those imposed by other countries, including those with value-added taxes common in Europe. “It’s fair to all,” Trump claimed, insisting no other nation could rightfully protest.
As anticipated, many countries did voice their concerns, leading EU chief Ursula von der Leyen to promise “proportional and clear countermeasures.”
The most alarming aspect, however, was Trump’s candid reflections on Putin. He described a lengthy call with the Russian leader, a war criminal, noting that both “believe very strongly” in “COMMON SENSE,” and revealing plans to explore further negotiations to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Subsequently, it was reported these discussions could take place in Saudi Arabia, with Ukraine claiming they had not been invited.
This obviously raised alarms across Europe. Just the previous week, Trump had suggested re-admitting Russia to the G7, claimed “Russia won’t allow” Ukraine to join NATO, and stated that “a lot of people were to blame” for the ongoing war, even suggesting Ukraine's NATO aspirations contributed to the situation.
Trump's refusal to condemn Putin for invading a sovereign nation during negotiations drew scrutiny. His recurrent comment that the war wouldn’t have occurred if he were president suggests a troubling neutrality towards the aggressor’s actions.
By the weekend’s conclusion, both Europeans and Americans were left pondering how to make Trump more amenable to supporting Ukraine. The prevailing notion was to negotiate a deal that might see the U.S. compensated for its military aid by leveraging Ukraine’s natural resources. Senator Lindsey Graham mentioned that discussing Ukraine's rare earth materials during a golf outing seemed to pique Trump’s interest.
However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed the desire for more robust security assurances and hesitated at an initial proposal offering military aid in exchange for a share of Ukraine's rare earth minerals.
On a positive note for Europe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s engagement garnered appreciation, particularly when he agreed to sign a G7 communique asserting unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.
During a private meeting in the ornate Holnstein Palace, Rubio explained to diplomats that the length of Trump’s call with Putin primarily stemmed from translation issues, urging them not to focus on NATO membership for Ukraine.
The consensus among U.S. and European officials was a concern over Rubio’s longevity and influence in an administration where Trump holds the ultimate decision-making power.
One G7 diplomat’s remark highlighted the urgency: how can we keep Rubio around?
A more pressing question emerged: what measures could pacify Trump?
As in his previous presidency, a familiar answer arose: increase defense spending, which David Petraeus, a retired general, deemed beneficial both substantively and politically.
“It’s the right thing to do,” Petraeus asserted. “It’s also the smart thing to do. It’s wonderful when you have two of those together.”
Some European leaders wasted no time, with Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković announcing a fivefold increase in defense spending since taking office.
Nico Lange, a former German Defense Ministry official, advocated for establishing a multi-country European defense force in Ukraine to decisively counter Russian threats.
“After 11 years of wake-up calls, the next wake-up call for the Europeans will be an air raid siren,” Lange cautioned.
Other leaders acknowledged that merely enhancing defenses was insufficient to maintain Trump’s support; they must demonstrate to him that continuing the transatlantic alliance serves his interests.
Alexander Stubb, the Finnish president, articulated this need, suggesting Europe must show its commitment to Ukraine negotiations. “You need to show that you have skin in the game and I think Europe hasn’t had a strategy so far,” he noted.
Stubb believed Finland could highlight its icebreaker technology, which aligns with Trump’s interests in Arctic affairs, as well as its telecommunications capabilities, emphasizing that Nokia is not Chinese-owned like Huawei.
When asked about his conversations with Rubio in Munich, Stubb revealed he had already spoken with Trump twice and that the president expressed enthusiasm about Finland’s icebreaker designs.
“This is a different administration, they have a different approach, and we in Europe shouldn’t over-dramatize the situation; we should be calm, cool, and collected,” Stubb remarked.
Easier said than done, perhaps, especially for him. Stubb has a unique connection with Trump, having studied in the U.S. and been a Division One college golfer. He clearly had a discussion with Trump about playing golf during those calls.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
