Returning to history. European leaders are keeping their mouths shut, but everyone is holding their breath. Will Kamala Harris win the November presidential election or will Donald Trump win? Uncertainty is maximum,
left the hypothesis of a clash until the last vote. The fate of Europe (and, arguably, the rest of the world) may depend on a handful of electoral consensuses in the few American states.
Scenario 1: Kamala Harris wins. Europe breathes a sigh of relief. Persistence pays off. No major differences are expected between the international posture of the Biden administration and that of a hypothetical Harris administration. Ukraine will continue to enjoy American aid, NATO will not lose its function as the military trap of the Western world. But every medal has its downside. Relief from Trump's defeat may make Europeans forget that America is no longer what it once was, that the shrinking of its international exposure began with the presidency of Barack Obama (Harris's sponsor). Harris or Trump makes no difference: The US strategic priority today is containing China. Competition in Asia will still have an advantage even with
a democratic administration, compared to what happens in other areas.
A famous American commentator, Walter Lippmann, argues that the secret of foreign policy lies in maintaining a balance between international commitments and available resources. In a phase of relative decline in American power, the resources available to the United States have shrunk and commitments must be scaled back.
Even with a Harris administration, Europe would not lose sight of the need to do much more than it does today for its security. However, the euphoria over Trump's defeat, the sense of escape from danger, may take away clarity from Europeans and make them postpone decisions that would be politically costly.
Second scenario: Trump wins. A tsunami. In Ukraine, the war could end on Putin's terms. NATO would be in crisis. Trump has never hidden that he considers the Europeans not a resource, but a club of parasites. In Europe, Trump's victory would fuel anti-Western (pro-Putinist) currents. The enemies of the West, Russia, China, Iran, jihadists from every part of the Islamic world, would be happy to note that Europe is weak, struggling, with its throat exposed. An easy target.
For the aforementioned reasons, with Trump's victory, panic would spread across Europe. And panic sometimes pushes you to make the right choices. In this case, the right choice would be to strengthen the cohesion of Europe. Above all, it is necessary to move from words to deeds in matters of European defense: the construction of the famous "European leg" of NATO with the hope that NATO will be able to survive even Trump. But sometimes panic doesn't push you to make the right choices. Under the motto "every man for himself," Europeans could not move separately, each seeking his own salvation. However, one thing is certain. Given Trump's disinterest and disdain for multilateral agreements, European governments would find themselves forced to negotiate, each on their own behalf, the terms of a new relationship with the United States. We can bet that Trump would "blast" the Brussels authorities and agree to deal only with national governments. For example, Italy must negotiate individually with the US administration on numerous economic disputes. Above all, since the greatest dangers for Italy come from the southern coast of the Mediterranean, Italy should try to get Trump to promise maximum military cover and protection in this area.
It is clear that European governments, while (rightfully) not saying it openly, are better off if Harris wins, but they also know they will have to factor in a possible Trump victory.
Harris could win or Trump could win. But there is also a third possible scenario. Kamala Harris wins by a narrow margin and Trump refuses to accept defeat. A period of unrest and violence follows. With his traditional brazenness, Trump may denounce rigged elections, perhaps citing the case of Venezuela (where fraud actually occurred). An America in the throes of turmoil would, before calm and order were restored, be very weak internationally. And many, around the world, would benefit from it.
Even in the most favorable cases, ie if Harris wins, the Europeans will have to do more to insure themselves. If politics were a game dominated only by rational calculations, the European players would know what needed to be done and do it. But in politics, rational calculations must always be confronted with passions, prejudices, mental laziness, distorted views of facts, all-out protection of short-term interests even if it compromises long-term interests. There is always a gap between what should be done and what can be done. / corriere della sera
*This article was published by bota.al and reposted by Tiranapost.al
