OPINION: ‘My Friends’ Enemy is Now My Friend’ – Part 1

To understand the true scale and scope of the geopolitical shift in US foreign policy, we need to examine the Trump administration’s policy statements towards its allies and partners as well as its Russia strategy. In doing so, we are witnessing the emergence of an unthinkable alliance between Putin and Trump that puts Europe in peril.

The future of NATO

“Leader of the CDU, Friedrich Merz, whose party won the German elections on Feb. 23, has stated that his “absolute priority is to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that we achieve independence from the US, step by step.”

“I wonder whether in June we will still be talking about NATO in its current form, or whether we will have to create an independent European defense structure much sooner,” Merz said in an interview with ARD and ZDF. The American government cares little about Europe’s fate.” He also compared the US government’s interference in Germany’s election campaign to manipulation by Russia.

His statements align with my previous articles: “Will NATO Survive the War?” and “Urgent: Strengthen European Defence Capabilities Now!.

What made the future Chancellor of Germany, Europe’s strongest economy – a country which was fully aligned with former President Biden’s foreign policy for Europe – come up with such a fundamental policy shift?

Other Topics of Interest

Kremlin Says Zelensky Needs to Be Forced to Make Peace

Putin’s spokesman called Friday’s angry encounter between Trump and Zelensky “quite an unprecedented event,” blaming Zelensky, who he said “demonstrated a complete lack of diplomatic abilities.”

Why is the future of NATO in question?

The short version is that:

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

has become

“The enemy of my friends is my friend”

In my article questioning the future of the Alliance, I highlighted several areas of fundamental discord. I argued that it was already divided over member states’ lack of political will and military capabilities; discord over NATO’s level of ambitions and strategy; and Europe’s and the US failure to meet their commitments to NATO.  The US was again questioning its role in European security, despite Europe’s commitment to US security. Under US leadership – and to the despair of Eastern Europe – NATO has walked away from its commitment to defend itself in Ukraine.

One month after the inauguration of Trump, the question has become even more acute.

President Trump recently stressed that “US allies were often “worse than our enemies” on trade. He called the EU “absolutely brutal” in its commercial relations with Washington” swearing to launch a trade war against it.

Trump claimed an early victory for his coercive foreign policy after announcing that Colombia – one of the US’s closest allies in the region - had been forced to back down in a dispute over migrant repatriation flights.

On Feb. 1, the US launched a trade war against Canada, Mexico and China, imposing grueling tariffs, only to postpone the tariffs against the first two, two days later. These are the top three importers and exporters of goods from/to the US.

Trump has suggested that Canada should become the 51st state of the USA.

He declared his intention to take the Panama Canal and Greenland by force if necessary. As a demonstration of the impact of the “Orange Swan event”, the head of the EU’s military committee, Austrian General Robert Brieger, aired the possibility of deploying European troops to Greenland.

On Feb. 4, President Trump declared that the US should take control of Gaza and permanently displace the entire Palestinian population of two million, indicating an intent to engage in ethnic cleansing. He vowed to turn Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

On Feb. 6, the US launched sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), triggering widespread international condemnation. A statement from 79 countries, of which 27 were NATO member states, stressed that these sanctions “threaten to erode the international rule of law, which is crucial for promoting global order and security.”

Prosecutor Karim Khan, who issued an arrest warrant for President Putin, was the first to be hit with economic and travel sanctions. Trump’s decision to sanction the ICC undermines the search for justice in Ukraine to the benefit of Russia.

President Trump has withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement, the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the main UN relief agency for Palestinians (UNRWA). Trump’s executive orders also call for a review of American involvement in the Paris-based UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and a review of the funding for the United Nations.

He has ordered a 90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of its efficiencies and consistency with US foreign policy. Abolishing the congressionally funded USAID will hurt both millions in need as well as US interests. USAID promote democratic governance, economic growth, and humanitarian assistance worldwide. It not least constitutes soft power projection undermining Russia’s and China’s efforts to build global political influence. 

And as if that was not enough, US Vice-President JD Vance on Feb. 14 launched a scalding attack on European democracies, saying the greatest threat facing Europe was not from Russia and China, but “from within.” European governments were accused of retreating from their values and ignoring voter concerns about migration and free speech. He urged Europe not to exclude politicians representing populist right-wing parties (e.g. the far-right German Alternative für Deutschland, the French National Rally party, the Dutch Freedom Party, the Italian Brothers of Italy, the Polish Law and Justice and the Hungarian Civic Alliance).

Afterwards, Vance met with Alice Weidel, the co-leader and candidate for chancellor of the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party of Nazi origin.

The blistering and confrontational remarks were met with shock and later slammed by many European Heads of State. Tellingly, it drew praise from Russia.

Vance’s speech was delivered days after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth undermined Ukraine’s negotiating position by conceding that it was unrealistic to expect a return to its pre-2014 borders and downplayed the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. He also suggested the US would significantly scale back its support for Ukraine, insisting that Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid. Now is the time to invest in security and defense because you can’t assume that the US’s presence will last forever, he added.

For every action, there is a reaction.

In less than a month President Trump has withdrawn the US from several international organizations and a legally binding treaty on climate change; temporarily stopped USAID at the peril of millions, ending a strategic soft power tool ensuring global influence; launched sanctions against the ICC, eroding the international rule of law; started a trade war against the US’s most important trading partners; bullied allies; threatened land grab in three different regions and suggested ethnic cleansing.

The statements by the US President, the speech by the US Vice President and the US Defense Secretary signal a deepening of the transatlantic chasm beyond different perceptions of Russia to an even deeper societal rupture about values and the nature of democracy. The speech marks an end to the era of shared US-European values.

This only marks the start of a fundamental geopolitical tectonic shift.

On the one hand, the US is turning its back on its European allies and the organization that has collectively made them the strongest military alliance in history. We are also witnessing the emergence of an unthinkable alliance between Putin and Trump at the peril of Europe. We are not least, seeing Europe considering a future security environment without the United States of America as an ally.

President Trump’s “plan” to end the war in Ukraine, however, further deepens the transatlantic chasm as his strategic messaging is frighteningly like President Putin’s disinformation and ultimatums.

Moving forward, two things are likely to happen. Firstly, the US negotiated a “peace deal” to end the war in Ukraine – not the broader confrontation between Russia and the West – which will further widen the transatlantic rupture.

Secondly, a coalition of like-minded European countries will emerge. Not all EU or NATO members will be eligible given their Russian and/or US affiliation.

Russia’s risk appetite towards [Europe] is likely to increase if the relative balance of power shifts in Russia’s favor

Thirdly, Europe – the Coalition of the like-minded (CALM) – will soon realize that dramatic times require dramatic measures. Being forced to find solutions outside the framework of NATO and the EU, and acknowledging that it might face an open confrontation with Russia in Russia in 2 to 5 years, Ukraine becomes a crucial part of the solution.

More so, because the risk according to the Danish Intelligence, increases “if Russia perceives NATO as militarily weakened or politically divided. This is particularly true if Russia assesses that the United States cannot or will not support the European NATO countries in a war with Russia.”

Hans Petter Midttun, independent analyst on hybrid warfare, Non-Resident Fellow at the Centre for Defense Strategies, board member of the Ukrainian Institute for Security and Law of the Sea, former Defense Attaché of Norway to Ukraine, and officer (R) of the Norwegian Armed Forces.