Europe

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares100 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Dummies for Putin’: Democrats defend Zelenskyy after ‘shameful’ Trump meeting

      by

      Democratic lawmakers rushed to defend Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the Ukrainian leader was publicly berated by Donald Trump in a disastrous Oval Office meeting.The US president accused Zelenskyy of “gambling with world war three” while his vice-president, JD Vance, called the Ukrainian leader “disrespectful”, before cutting short talks aimed at kicking off the process of ending Kyiv’s three-year war with Russia.Zelenskyy abruptly left the White House soon after without signing a rare critical minerals deal with the US that Trump has said is the first step toward a ceasefire agreement that he is seeking to broker between Russia and Ukraine.Democratic senators came to Zelenskyy’s defense in statements condemning Trump and Vance’s “shameful” and “disgraceful” treatment of the Ukrainian leader.“Every time I’ve met with President Zelenskyy, he’s thanked the American people for our strong support,” Chris Coons, a Democratic senator from Delaware, wrote on X. “We owe him our thanks for leading a nation fighting on the front lines of democracy – not the public berating he received at the White House.”Adam Schiff, the California senator, said: ““A hero and a coward are meeting in the Oval Office today. And when the meeting is over, the hero will return home to Ukraine.”Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, said: “What an utter embarrassment for America. This whole sad scene.” The Arizona senator Ruben Gallego added: “This is a disgrace.”Senator Chris Van Hollen from Maryland also described the scenes in the Oval Office as “beyond disgraceful”. The Illinois senator Dick Durbin added: “The people of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy deserve an apology.”“Trump and Vance berating Zelenskyy – putting on a show of lies and misinformation that would make Putin blush – is an embarrassment for America and a betrayal of our allies,” Durbin said. “They’re popping champagne in the Kremlin.”Trump and Vance “are doing Putin’s dirty work”, the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, said after the calamitous meeting, adding that his party will “never stop fighting for freedom and democracy”.Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic senator from Rhode Island, also accused Trump and Vance of “acting like ventriloquist dummies for Putin”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhitehouse was part of a bipartisan group of senators who met with Zelenskyy earlier in the morning before his meeting with the president. The Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar said the hour-long discussion showed “strong bipartisan support in the Senate for Ukraine’s freedom and democracy”.Klobuchar later addressed Vance directly in a social media post saying that Zelenskyy had thanked the US “over and over again” both privately and publicly.“Our country thanks HIM and the Ukrainian patriots who have stood up to a dictator, buried their own & stopped Putin from marching right into the rest of Europe,” she wrote. “Shame on you,” she said, referring to Vance.Tina Smith, another Democratic senator from Minnesota, called on her Republican colleagues to “speak out” in the name of “patriotism”. “Once, we fought tyrants. Today Trump and Vance are bending America’s knee,” she said.But Republican senators rushed to defend Trump, describing the president’s exchange with Zelenskyy as evidence that he was “putting America first”.Mike Lee, a Utah Republican senator, thanked Trump and Vance “for standing up to our country and putting America first”. The Indiana Republican senator Jim Banks also thanked Trump for “standing up for America”.“[Zelenskyy] ungratefully expects us to bankroll and escalate another forever war–all while disrespecting the President,” Banks wrote on X. “The entitlement is insulting to working Americans.” More

    • 125 Shares87 Views

      in US Politics

      America must not surrender its Democratic values | Bernie Sanders

      by

      For 250 years, the United States has held itself up as a symbol of democracy – an example of freedom and self-governance to which the rest of the world could aspire. People have long looked to our declaration of independence and constitution as blueprints for how to guarantee those human rights and freedoms.Tragically, all of that is changing. As Donald Trump moves this country towards authoritarianism, he is aligning himself with dictators and despots who share his disdain for democracy and the rule of law.This week, in a radical departure from longstanding US policy, the Trump administration voted against a United Nations resolution which clearly stated that Russia began the horrific war with Ukraine. That resolution also called on Russia to withdraw its forces from occupied Ukraine, in line with international law. The resolution was brought forward by our closest allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and dozens more democratic nations. And 93 countries voted “yes”.Rather than side with our longstanding allies to preserve democracy and uphold international law, the president voted with authoritarian countries such as Russia, North Korea, Iran and Belarus to oppose the resolution. Many of the other opponents of that resolution are undemocratic nations propped up by Russian military aid.Let’s be clear: this was not just another UN vote. This was the president of the United States turning his back on 250 years of our history and openly aligning himself with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. This was the president of the United States undermining the independence of Ukraine.And let us not forget who Putin is. He is the man who crushed Russia’s movement towards democracy after the end of the cold war. He steals elections, murders political dissidents and crushes freedom of the press. He has maintained control in Russia by offering the oligarchs there a simple deal: if you give me absolute power, I will let you steal as much as you want from the Russian people. He sparked the bloodiest war in Europe since the second world war.It has been three years since Russia’s brutal, unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than 1 million people have been killed or injured because of Putin’s aggression. Every single day, Russia rains down hundreds of missiles and drones on Ukrainian cities. Putin’s forces have massacred civilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them back to Russian “re-education” camps. These atrocities led the international criminal court to issue an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 as a war criminal.Not only is Trump aligning himself with Putin’s Russia, he is prepared to extort Ukraine for its natural resources. While a proud nation desperately fights for its life, Trump is focused on helping his billionaire friends make a fortune excavating rare earths and other minerals.But Trump’s turn toward authoritarianism and rejection of international law goes well beyond Ukraine.The president sees the world’s dictators as his friends, our democratic allies as his enemies and the use of military force as the way to achieve his goals. Disgracefully, he wants to push 2.2 million Palestinians out of their homeland in order to build a billionaire’s playground in Gaza. He talks openly about annexing Greenland from Denmark. He says the United States should take back the Panama canal. And he ruptures our friendship with our Canadian neighbors by telling them they should become the 51st state in the union.Alongside his fellow oligarchs in Russia, Saudi Arabia and around the globe, Trump wants a world ruled by authoritarians in which might makes right, and where democracy and moral values cease to exist.Just over a century ago, a handful of monarchs, emperors and tsars ruled most of the world. Sitting in extreme opulence, they claimed that absolute power was their “divine right”. But ordinary people disagreed.Slowly and painfully, in countries throughout the world, they clawed their way toward democracy and rejected colonialism.At our best, the US has played a key role in the movement toward freedom. From Gettysburg to Normandy, millions of Americans have fought – and many have died – to defend democracy, often alongside brave men and women from other nations.This is a turning point – a moment of enormous consequence in world history. Do we go forward toward a more democratic, just and humane world? Or do we retreat back into oligarchy, authoritarianism, colonialism and the rejection of international law?As Americans, we cannot stay quiet as Trump abandons centuries of our commitment to democracy. Together, we must fight for our long-held values and work with people around the world who share them.

      Bernie Sanders is a US senator and a ranking member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress More

    • 175 Shares125 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: Independent readers have their say on the US, Nato, and Europe’s security dilemma

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyFrom reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference.Read moreGermany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has questioned Nato’s future, shifting from his pro-US stance to advocating for stronger European cooperation. His stance has sparked debate over whether Europe should reduce its dependence on the US, particularly as President Donald Trump presses Nato allies to increase defense spending to 5 per cent of GDP.Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who is in Washington to visit the president, has pledged to raise the UK’s defence spending to 2.5 per cent – a move welcomed by the White House but deemed insufficient by Mr Trump, who is urging allies to double their commitments.When we asked for your views, some readers argued for full European military independence, while others warned of the risks and suggested a gradual transition away from Nato. Some even called for cutting ties with the US entirely, accusing it of becoming unreliable.Here’s what you had to say:US dependenceDoes the cost of going it alone outweigh continuing to be so dependent on the US? Probably not… Maybe increasing the spend on defence is the cheaper option? However, Trump’s approach is of real concern, as he seemingly makes strategic decisions without all the information and without engaging his partners. He does get people speaking, but are they having a joined‐up conversation?mootyDiverging US and European priorities I suggest that events will decide the matter. Trump made it very clear in his delegation’s vote the other day at the UN that he is not going to express solidarity with other Nato members from time to time.Foreign policy objectives are diverging and have been for some time. The US is increasingly concerned with China, its expansion, and its threats to US interests in Asia. It is clear now that Europe’s priority will be security on its own continent.There will probably be a formal split in due course. Hopefully, the US will not become hostile to European interests, but simply take less interest. There has long been an isolationist tendency in the US.49niner Defence for dominance Under NATO, Europe exchanged ‘cheap’ defence for American dominance over European foreign policy. Well, American foreign policy has now taken a direction that is unacceptable to European views, and they have made it clear that they will not contribute to the defence of European security and freedom. So there is no real Nato cooperation left.America has also been granted a substantial payment via the purchase of American military hardware that will also be no longer necessary.RebootedyetagainHans2 Europe self-defence is feasible Considering that for all intents and purposes the US has already stepped away from Nato, I think we should acknowledge that reality and stop trying to get the US back on board. The Bruegel think tank wrote that Europe could defend itself without US help, provided it mobilised 300,000 more troops. Increasing defence expenditure to 3.5 per cent of GDP (€250bn extra per year) would cover these and other costs. According to the think tank, this is economically feasible and far less than the amount of money that had to be mobilised to recover from the Covid crisis.Real European High time Europe stood up for itself; essentially, Nato with Ukraine replacing the US. Defence spending within Europe would have hugely beneficial effects on our economies – to the detriment of the US military industrial complex. So, a win-win for Europe. The US is clearly no longer a reliable partner, so stop finding excuses, ignore the critics, and get it done!blackdog10 Europe must unify militarily Yes, Europe needs to be able to stand alone militarily. Looking at the big picture, China will soon be the major superpower. The USA is declining with its inward-looking approach. Russia has declined already, and has not been a superpower for many years and is nearly irrelevant. Europe must unify and strengthen into an economic and military superpower to stand on the world stage.RJMUnited in defence Trump is only demanding European countries increase defence spending so that they’ll buy more weapons from the USA. Europe needs to call his bluff, increase spending, and then boost EU defence manufacturing instead of buying from the US.While it’s doing that, Europe needs to be able to defend itself in the new world order. European leaders should be coming together politically and militarily to build a European Federation that would have one of the largest and certainly best-equipped military forces in the world. Europe combined already has the second-highest defence spending after the US and more military personnel than the US. It wouldn’t be difficult to build a European military command to take the place of the US in Nato.It could take political decisions that would strengthen its hand while having enough military power to back it up. The EU can continue to deal with trade and economics for its members, even ending freedom of movement and handing border control and migration back to sovereign countries to control as they need. That would also cut off the right at their knees and keep Trump and Putin out of European politics.Trump gets what he wants, the UK is back in its rightful place in Europe, Europe becomes stronger and the right are pushed out. What’s not to like?TabbersFree from American dominanceIt is the US under Trump that is moving away from Europe. America’s priorities, according to the president, are elsewhere. So be it. Europe and the UK must take this as an opportunity to free themselves from American dominance and set their own defence and intelligence priorities, to reflect Europe’s needs rather than those of the US. Our leaders, especially the British ones who seem obsessed with the mythical “special relationship”, must understand that countries don’t have friends; they have allies, and alliances are never permanent.DanilovCut ties with the USAWake up, folks! Today’s America is behaving as an enemy that wants our NHS for profit, the wealth of our friends (like Ukraine), our own democracy, our belief in international institutions, our safety from adulterated food, and who knows what next? Our allies are in Europe. We should cut ties with the USA and block the likes of Trump and Musk from addressing our people.SimplesimonBuy time approachTry to set aside emotion. 1. Europe and the US served a mutual need in WWII. Threats from Europe and the East – as is the case now. Nato cut the cost of peace for the US by containing Russia. That persisted until 2025. All treaties change over time, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. 2. For personal political reasons, Trump scorned that. What brought about Nato exists again – Trump’s reaction is different and he’s not ideological. Our position is: A, we’d like to do without him as well, but we cannot – he’s not a good guy to have on your side. B, we need a ‘buy time’ approach at least until we can do without him, which we can. Reason: Russia doesn’t like fighting; it likes flattening, and Europe is too big. So, just like domestic upheaval, find a ‘buy time’ answer that may develop in a European context. Steer a wide course around America and Russia.SimonthehopefulDangling like a puppetTrump and Putin are apparently playing games with Ukraine (and, by inference, Europe). Trump states America will not be part of any peacekeeping force in Ukraine (except to guard “his” minerals), but says Putin is agreeable to the idea of European peacekeepers.Now, Putin and/or his mouthpieces are saying that such a peacekeeping force is unacceptable to Russia.Putin has been dangling Trump like a puppet for some time now, letting Trump boost his own ego with unsubstantiated “look at me and what I’ve done” statements, and then cutting the rope.Europe (and not just the EU) and the UK need to work together on military matters as they have in the past (joint fighter planes, etc.), and most of the time the results are as good as, if not better than, the American options.We need Europe and the UK to stand up to both Trump and Putin by telling them what to do with their “sale” of Ukraine to the highest bidder.My thanks also to Tabbers’ comment about Europe’s combined military levels being second only to the USA, but we don’t apparently have the required amount of working equipment available.ChrisMcNExpand European defence production Europe could build a joint defence based on existing Nato structures. No need to boot the US out or change anything, just leave things in place and build on them. But, starting yesterday, Europe needs to expand its defence production capability – aircraft, tanks, artillery, ships, ammunition. And even the unthinkable: more nuclear weapons, so as to provide a credible deterrent. The UK needs independent nuclear weapons, even if it has to rely on Typhoons to deliver them. And it’s high time Germany pulled its weight in defence (encouraging signs from Merz), including acquiring and being prepared to use nuclear force.oldnuffSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

    • 238 Shares86 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says US won’t give Ukraine security guarantees ‘beyond very much’ ahead of Starmer meeting – UK politics live

      by

      Good morning. Keir Starmer is in Washington where later today he will have his first meeting with President Trump since the inauguration. With Trump aligning with Moscow even more explicitly than he did during his first administration, and threatening to wind down the Nato guarantees that have underpinned the security of western Europe since the second world war, the stakes could not be higher. Starmer, despite leading a party whose activists mostly loathe Trump and everything he represents, has managed to establish a warm relationship with the president and today will give some clues as to what extent he can sustain that, and protect the UK from the tariff warfare that Trump is threatening to unleash on the EU. But Starmer is one of three European leaders in Washington this week (Emmanuel Macron was there on Monday, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is there tomorrow) and today’s meeting is also part of a wider story about the fracturing of the US/Europe alliance. It is definitely in trouble; but what is not yet clear is whether after four years of Trump it will still be functioning effectively.Starmer spoke to reporters on his flight to the US yesterday. Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor, was on the plane and, as she reports, Starmer said he wants Trump to agree that, in the event of a peace settlement in Ukraine, the US will offer security guarantees that will make it durable. He has already said that Britain would contribute troops to a European so-called “tripwire” peace-keeping force, there to defend Ukraine and deter Russia. But European soldiers would need US air and logistical support to be effective, and Starmer is looking for assurances on this topic.But the backdrop is not promising. As Starmer was flying across the Atlantic, Trump wsa holding a televised cabinet meeting where, Soviet-style, his ministers laughed heartily at his jokes as they all congratulated each other on how brilliantly they were doing. In the course of the meeting, on the subject of Ukraine, Trump said:
      I’m not going to make security guarantees beyond very much. We’re going to have Europe do that.
      Starmer is due to arrive at the White House shortly after 5pm UK time and the press conference is meant to start at 7pm. We will, of course, be covering it live. It should be fascinating. During Trump’s first term, Theresa May managed to get the first foreign leader invite to the White House and her visit, during which she offered the president a state visit, was deemed a success. But it did not stop Trump treating her very badly later during the presidency, regularly patronising when they spoke in private, and sometimes in public too, and openly suggesting at one point that Boris Johnson would make a better replacement.Here is the agenda for the day.9.30am: The Home Office publishes its latest asylum, resettlement and returns figures.9.30am: Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, takes questions in the Commons.After 10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, makes a statement to MPs about next week’s parliamentary business.11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.Around 5.15pm (UK time): Keir Starmer is due to arrive at the White House for his meeting with President Trump.Around 7pm (UK time): Starmer and Trump are due to hold a press conference.And at some point today Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, is expected to announce that she is approving a decision to expand Gatwick.If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog. More

    • 163 Shares132 Views

      in US Politics

      Top Democrat says Trump may seek mineral deal with both Russia and Ukraine

      by

      Donald Trump may be pursuing a mineral rights deal with Vladimir Putin and Russia as well as with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine, a top Senate Democrat has warned, discussing the US president’s demand that Kyiv grant US firms access to 50% of its rare-earth reserves, as a price for helping end the war three years after Russia invaded.“I think anything that helps position Ukraine for any peace negotiations is a positive move,” said Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the Senate foreign relations and armed services committee, who recently visited Ukraine.“Now, what we heard when we were in Ukraine is that 40-50% of those mineral deposits are actually in territory controlled by the Russians. Maybe part of the deal is President Trump is going to get a deal with Vladimir Putin on the mineral rights too. So … that could be a little tricky.”Shaheen was speaking to the One Decision podcast, hosted by the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, the former CIA director Leon Panetta and the reporter Christina Ruffini.Saying Ukraine cannot expect to regain all territory taken by Russia, and rejecting Kyiv’s aim of joining Nato, Trump has demanded a deal with Ukraine as repayment for military support. On Wednesday, Trump said Zelenskyy would visit Washington on Friday to sign a “very big agreement that will be on rare earth and other things”.Trump did not offer details of a deal but said he was “not going to make security guarantees beyond very much,” adding: “We’re going to have Europe do that.”Trump is due to meet Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, on Thursday. Starmer has said the UK is willing to contribute peacekeeping troops.Shaheen said: “I do think there is support to do everything we can to help get a peace in Ukraine. And from my perspective, one of the most important aspects of that is ensuring that the Ukrainians are positioned in the most positive, favorable way for them. If this deal helps with that, and President Zelenskyy is comfortable signing it, then I support that.”Shaheen said her visit to Ukraine, with fellow Democrat Michael Bennet, of Colorado, and Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, proved “compelling, disturbing”.The senators visited Bucha, where Russian troops carried out a massacre in 2022. The town “showed the resilience of the Ukrainian people,” Shaheen said, adding: “They’re willing to resist. And it showed just what a murderous thug Vladimir Putin is.”Shaheen said the senators “met with the mayor of Bucha, we met with the priest. There had been a mass grave of a couple of hundred of the civilians who were killed. There were over 500 killed in Bucha in that 33-day siege [the final toll is unclear]. It was horrific. It was absolutely brutal. Finding the graves, taking the corpses out of the graves.“We met with the investigators who were investigating each murder individually, and they showed us the picture of the Russian commander who had given the order. And it was very clear that the order was to frighten the civilians, to do everything you can to try and reduce any resistance from the civilians. And for me … I thought this was a small village someplace in the hinterlands of Ukraine, but it’s not, it’s a suburb of Kyiv, and the tanks were stopped right there at the suburb.“So it really pointed out the stark contrast between the Russians and the Ukrainians and what’s at stake in this war.”Trump has stirred huge controversy by seeming to favor Putin and Russia in regards to the war in Ukraine, not least by beginning talks for a settlement without including Ukraine or European powers.Asked about Trump’s lie that Zelenskyy was a dictator who started the war, Shaheen said: “It’s very distressing. And the president’s wrong. He’s just wrong … Vladimir Putin is the dictator. President Zelenskiy was duly elected by the people of Ukraine, and he has a higher favorability rating than Donald Trump.” More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      UK’s Starmer to Meet Trump With a Boost on Defense and Pleas for Ukraine

      by

      Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, fresh from announcing a boost to military spending, is flying to Washington for a high-stakes visit.Now it’s Keir Starmer’s turn.After President Emmanuel Macron of France navigated his meeting with President Trump on Monday, skirting the rockiest shoals but making little headway, Mr. Starmer, the British prime minister, will meet Mr. Trump on Thursday to plead for the United States not to abandon Ukraine.Mr. Starmer will face the same balancing act as Mr. Macron did, without the benefit of years of interactions dating to 2017, when Mr. Trump greeted the newly elected French president with a white-knuckle handshake that was the first of several memorable grip-and-grin moments.Unlike Mr. Macron, Mr. Starmer will arrive in the Oval Office armed with a pledge to increase his country’s military spending to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2027, and to 3 percent within a decade. That addresses one of Mr. Trump’s core grievances: his contention that Europeans are free riders, sheltering under an American security umbrella.To finance the rearming, Mr. Starmer will pare back Britain’s overseas development aid, a move that echoes, on a more modest scale, Mr. Trump’s dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development. Mr. Starmer’s motive is budgetary not ideological — he says the cuts are regrettable — but Mr. Trump might approve.British officials said Mr. Starmer would combine his confidence-building gestures on defense with a strong show of support for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and a warning not to rush into a peace deal with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that fails to establish security guarantees for Ukraine.“The key thing is, we don’t want to repeat the previous mistakes in dealing with Putin, in going for a truce or cease-fire that doesn’t convert into a durable peace,” said Peter Mandelson, who became Britain’s ambassador to Washington three weeks ago and has helped arrange the visit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 288 Shares111 Views

      in US Politics

      Friedrich Merz was the most pro-US politician in Germany – his shift could be historic for Europe | Jörg Lau for Europe |

      by

      It is hard to overstate the importance of Friedrich Merz’s urgent message to the nation after his win in the German elections. This, after all, is the beginning of a new, dangerous era in European security. It would be his “absolute priority”, Merz said, immediately after victory for the CDU/CSU was confirmed, to create unity in Europe as quickly as possible, “so that, step by step, we can achieve independence from the US”. He added: “I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television programme.”Indeed. For the leader of the conservative CDU, a lifelong believer in the transatlantic security alliance, this is a significant reversal. And it is highly personal for Merz: there is hardly a more pro-American politician in Germany than the man who worked for the investment company BlackRock and was the long-serving chairman of the influential lobbying group Atlantik-Brücke (Atlantic Bridge).That makes the unfavourable things the chancellor-elect had to say about the US government all the more remarkable. The interference from Washington in the German election campaign had been “no less dramatic and drastic and ultimately outrageous than the interventions we have seen from Moscow”, Merz said, referring to Elon Musk’s ever more frenzied support for the far-right AfD, and to the polemics of the US vice-president, JD Vance, against the CDU’s “firewall” policy, which excludes cooperating with the Putin-friendly party.Germany was under “massive pressure from two sides”, and Donald Trump’s government was “largely indifferent to the fate of Europe”, Merz said, warning that it was unclear whether, by the Nato summit in June, “we will still be talking about Nato in its current form or whether we will have to establish an independent European defence capability much more quickly”.The unusual frankness of his remarks reflects a deep frustration that has built up in traditionally pro-US conservative circles in Germany, particularly over interference led by Musk and Vance. Their coordinated campaign sought to undercut the centre-right Christian Democrats in favour of the far right in the run-up to the vote. Musk posted a barrage of tweets on his X platform, including some on election day. He has also tweeted his support for one of the most extreme proponents of the AfD, Björn Höcke – a man twice convicted for using Nazi slogans.Even more intrusive were Vance’s repeated statements linking the CDU’s firewall policy, which keeps the AfD out of power, with the US security guarantee for Europe. The vice-president’s menacing message to Germany was: if you continue to exclude the far right from power, the US cannot do much for you.It was heartening to hear the chancellor-elect refute this unprecedented meddling in Germany’s affairs. He must know that the vindictive Trump administration will most likely want to make him regret his choice of words.There is an irony here in that Merz had tried his own brand of Trumpism just weeks ago, when he reacted to a string of violent attacks in Germany with the announcement of a tough migration policy that he would enact “on day one” of his chancellorship. He put pressure on the centre-left parties, the Social Democrats and the Greens. If they refused to support him, he would have no choice but to accept the votes of the far right for his proposals. To the shock of many, Merz’s non-binding motion (which included controversial measures such as pushing back all asylum seekers at the border) was passed with the votes of the AfD.That left Merz with a mixed message for the rest of the campaign: he promised radical change but continued to vow non-cooperation with his far-right competition. Mainstream voters who wanted a more restrictive migration policy, but not with the help of the extreme right, were left with doubts: how trustworthy was Merz? Would he do it again? The conservatives’ underwhelming result in the election is testimony to his miscalculation.To make matters worse, Merz had opened himself to AfD goading that he lacked the stamina to follow through and form a rightwing majority coalition. Our hand remains outstretched, the AfD co-leader, Alice Weidel, has repeated maliciously since election day, but if you keep shutting us out, we will crush you next time.Expect to hear this tune a lot in the coming weeks. Merz’s gambit backfired. His only option now is coalition talks with the diminished Social Democrats. If both parties manage to form a government, it can hardly be called a “grand coalition” any more. The two “people’s parties” barely add up to a majority in parliament.Yet there is an opportunity that arises from these pressures. The Social Democrats may find it easier to compromise on migration policy when in coalition with the conservatives. The next government urgently needs to exert more control on the border to counter the far-right narrative.Merz’s blunt assessment of an emerging post-transatlantic order opens a long overdue debate in Germany. It is, indeed, a head-spinning moment for the country’s strategic defence community, a reversal of core beliefs that have guided Germany for the past 80 years.It was the CDU that tied Germany irreversibly to the western alliance. This was a major historical achievement, because it was not at all popular at the time, especially among German conservatives who had habitually been anti-US. Konrad Adenauer, the first postwar chancellor, risked all the political capital he had when he steered a fiercely anti-western and pacifist Germany towards rearmament and Nato membership in 1955. What’s more, he rejected the alternative path suggested by the French president, Charles de Gaulle, to opt for a European defence community.Trump has now turned Germany’s conviction on its head. All German governments from Adenauer onwards, irrespective of left or right leanings, had argued against the French project of “European strategic autonomy” for fear that it would weaken Nato. A security partnership with the US was the indispensable guarantee of peace on the continent, the thinking went. But now the US government is calling Nato into question, thereby making a more independent Europe a necessity.The consequences are not confined to the continent. Merz wants to explore closer security cooperation with London, and he already has his eye on the UK’s nuclear arsenal, as well as France’s. What a turnaround: Germany, once proud of phasing out nuclear energy, is shopping for a new nuclear umbrella.Ironically, these worrying turns might help Merz succeed in forming a coalition with the Social Democrats. Reforming the strict fiscal regime known as the Schuldenbremse, or “debt brake”, has always been a source of friction between them. No more. The rigid limit on borrowing, enshrined in the German constitution, must go. Everybody knows this: there is no way to replace US security protection while upholding a balanced budget.Changing the constitutional debt brake requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag, which leads to the final irony: Merz will have to make a deal with the parties on the left to win their support for loosening spending. More borrowing for defence, but also for infrastructure investments. Only a conservative could do this, like only Richard Nixon could go to China.There is quite a measure of poetic justice in this development. Merz has gone from flirting with Trumpism to easing Germany’s austerity policies in just a matter of weeks.

      Jörg Lau is an international correspondent for the German weekly Die Zeit More

    • 225 Shares104 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: Should the UK and Europe step away from Nato – and US influence? Join The Independent Debate

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyFrom reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference.Read moreGermany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has stirred debate by calling for Europe to achieve “independence” from the United States and questioning whether Nato can survive.Amid America’s controversial negotiations with Russia on bringing Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine to an end, Merz has distanced himself from Trump’s rhetoric and advocated for stronger European unity.Merz argues that Europe should build its own defence, with potential backing from nuclear powers like the UK and France.However, critics warn that no European alternative can match America’s military strength and that breaking away from Nato could leave Europe exposed to growing global threats.The debate is heating up as UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer revealed – ahead of a meeting with Trump in Washington – that he plans to increase defence spending by 2.5 per cent of GDP, adding £13.4 billion annually by 2027 to counter threats like Russia. With Merz pushing for greater European cohesion, we want to know if you think Europe should chart its own defence path with the US. Or would leaving Nato put the continent in danger?Share your thoughts in the comments – we’ll feature the most compelling responses.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen. More