Harris and Trump: Focus on China, not Europe

 

 "For the USA, the European allies will in any case become less important. The presidential election in November will only affect how quickly this alienation progresses - and how planned.

 

The Republican Donald Trump and the Democrat Kamala Harris are likely to be close to each other on one point: in the belief that the Indo-Pacific region and a powerful China within it will be the main geopolitical challenge facing the USA in the coming decades. The Atlantic region, and thus Europe, are therefore in the second row for the USA.

 

Although the two presidential candidates communicate this in very different ways, both assume that the Europeans themselves will have to bear the brunt of their security and will no longer be able to rely on the USA as a security guarantor in the future. The Europeans must prepare for this - regardless of which of the two candidates wins the election on November 5th.

 

The difference between the two lies in the way in which they will implement this basic conviction: in the long term and in close coordination with the Europeans, as is to be expected with Harris. or abruptly and suddenly, as is to be expected with Trump. Harris follows the idea that the USA needs allies in order to continue to act as a global actor and that the presence on the opposite Atlantic coast is indispensable for its security. 

 

Harris will, however, reduce the associated burdens in order to free up resources for the Indo-Pacific region.

 

With Trump, the idea of ​​​​dependence on allies is less pronounced. This was shown in his gruff behavior towards NATO partners during his presidency. With Trump, a rift between the USA and Europe cannot be ruled out, at least not if the Europeans do not dance to his tune.

 

The consequences for Ukraine

 

What does this mean for Ukraine? Harris is likely to be willing to continue to support Ukraine. She fears that a victorious President Vladimir Putin would become a constant source of unrest in Europe, which could repeatedly disrupt the desired American concentration on the Indo-Pacific region. In their view, Putin and others in Ukraine must learn that borders in Europe cannot be shifted without paying an unaffordable price.

 

Trump, on the other hand, will, as he has repeatedly announced, negotiate with Putin over the heads of the Ukrainians and the Europeans to end the war. He did something similar during his previous presidency in the Doha negotiations, which then led to the withdrawal of the USA and its European allies from Afghanistan. The Europeans played no role in the Doha negotiations; they were lucky if they were informed of their results.

 

The end of the transatlantic West

 

Ukraine is one thing, the US nuclear security guarantee for Europe is another. Even if a President Trump does not revoke it, there would be little confidence in the reliability of the American commitments once the USA and Russia negotiate over the heads of the Europeans. The Kremlin would rattle its nuclear sabre even more often when trying to enforce its own will. If the Europeans remained as they are now, they would be impressed and would meet the Kremlin's demands. Sooner or later, this would be the end of the transatlantic West.

 

Kamala Harris will not maintain the American security guarantees for Europe for free either, but will probably insist that the Europeans participate in securing the Indo-Pacific region. The Europeans, in turn, will have to decide whether they want to establish a security architecture independent of the USA or whether they want to pay for the continued existence of the US guarantees by providing air and naval forces to secure the Indo-Pacific. Both will cost the Europeans a lot, and in addition to the costs, trust in the respective US president will play a role in this decision. The question of "Trump or Harris" is likely to be the decisive factor.

 

The biggest difference between Harris and Trump lies in their respective approaches to geopolitical issues: Harris can be trusted to develop a "grand strategy" with her advisors and to follow it. A grand strategy, for which there is, tellingly, no German word, is the overarching political line that governs all "policies" - from economic and cultural policy to technology and security policy - and which the sub-policies must follow. A grand strategy specifies what is to be done in the event of a conflict, even if some of the policies are not consistently point in the same direction. It determines the order of priority of the goals.

 

Donald Trump will not be able to follow a grand strategy, even if those around him advise him to do so. He is, as he himself says, a "deal maker". That means he follows opportunities that seem good and favorable to him and does not allow himself to be bound by any overarching strategic guidelines. But that means that you cannot rely on him. And that means that if he becomes president, he will be a significant source of uncertainty for international politics."

 

Harris would continue to toe the Biden line, dividing the world, risking a nuclear World War III and the destruction of life on Earth.