Europe, caught between Putin and Trump, faces its worst uncertainty ever
While at NATO headquarters in Brussels, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announces more military spending, from the Ministry of Defence in Spain, Colonel José Luis Calvo Albero reflects on the delicate months ahead, not only for Europe, but for geopolitics in general. They are going to be tough.
Russia held elections between 15 and 17 March, with no options for change, because the dictator Vladimir Putin will remain in power for six more years with these elections in disguise; and in the United States, former President Donald Trump recently won the Republican Party's candidacy to run again for the presidency in the elections on 5 November.
For Europe, in the current geopolitical context, with Russia's invasion of Ukraine heading into its third year and war tensions in the Gaza Strip, being caught between Putin's threats and Trump's return to the White House is a nightmare.
"Yes it is a very unattractive prospect, we knew it was coming. And although at the moment we are not absolutely certain that Trump will win the election, although there are many possibilities, the problem is that if he returns to power he will do so in a very troubled world and then that becomes even more worrying," according to the Spanish military officer.
A few days ago I spoke exclusively with the head of the Coordination and Studies Division of the General Secretariat for Defence Policy of the Spanish Ministry of Defence and he reiterated that Trump is already known for the way he behaved during his four years as president. "And while in some aspects it is possible to negotiate with him, in others it is impossible to do so".
"The part that worries us Europeans the most has to do with the US commitment to defence, it is our pillar in defence and if that commitment is weakened... if Trump weakens it because he is not so willing to help Europe in case of a threat, for us it will be a radical change in our entire security and defence scheme," warned Colonel Calvo Albero.
Article 5 has a catch: no one can be obliged to defend another country if their country's Congress does not authorise it...
Yes, indeed, the commitment in article 5 is that Alliance member countries would support a member that invokes article 5 because it is attacked or attacked, but with the resources and in the manner they deem appropriate. In reality, this article is quite flexible in that it does not oblige military action... but that consensus is not written into the Treaty that indeed an aggression by the Alliance would provoke a military response from the rest, from everyone as a whole.
For this reason, says Calvo Albero, it is very important to maintain the cohesion and credibility of NATO's 32 member countries: "With statements like Trump's, doubts begin to arise and this weakens the cohesion of the Alliance. We all think that the moment someone attacks a NATO country, the rest, with the United States in the lead, will come to its defence. But this is not the case, i.e. it could be supported with diplomatic or humanitarian aid, military intelligence or military equipment, but not necessarily troops on the ground.
It is strange, but the only time article 5 has been invoked was by the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001...
It was a bit atypical, nobody expected the US to be the first to invoke Article 5, it was expected to be a European country; secondly, it was a request for a terrorist attack; so aircraft were deployed to engage in early warning over US airspace; in other words, there was surveillance and a number of military capabilities were requested, but not a military intervention as such.
Why do you think Trump is trying to weaken NATO?
It is curious and worrying for us Europeans. What happens is that we don't know to what extent with Trump he is playing at putting pressure on allies to spend more on defence; we don't know if his statements are totally serious and in the end he will say that he will not defend Europe. I remember that, at one point, he even said that his country would not go to war to defend Montenegro, for example.
Calvo Albero insists that Trump's own personality is uncertain in many ways and he is one of those people who put pressure, who generate a lot of pressure, as well as having very isolationist ideas for the United States.
This is the second time I have spoken to this prominent military expert in intelligence analysis and, at the time, a few months ago, with regard to the invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine, he reiterated to me that people like Putin had to be given a way out.
Something that, given the way things are on the global chessboard and especially in the new European geopolitics after Finland and recently Sweden joined the Alliance, seems increasingly impossible.
"This is what happens when conflicts drag on, as the war becomes longer and longer the positions on both sides are more bitter: on the one hand, Ukraine has 18% of its territory invaded and it is very difficult for Zelenski to sell a ceasefire to its population; and, in the case of Russia, it is seen to have a little more of an advantage compared to a year ago when the Ukrainian counteroffensive was being prepared. Although it is true that Ukraine is now weaker due to the lack of support from the United States", said Calvo Albero.
Even so, from Calvo Albero's military point of view, Russia must be given a way out, but at the same time Ukraine must be given a solution that is "fair" and restores its dignity and sovereignty as a nation.
This is gibberish because Zelensky wants the 1991 borders back and Crimea returned to him....
First, the most realistic thing is a ceasefire, to stop hostilities, and after that negotiations with international mediation will be necessary; without an international mediator it is very difficult for both sides to sit down to negotiate and then they will need an agreement. These things involve compromises on both sides, as Europeans it may be preferable for Ukraine to lose part of its territory in an agreement rather than by force.
World on edge ahead of US elections
NATO is celebrating these days after Sweden joined its ranks. It is its thirty-second member. Practically, the Baltic is territory under the Alliance's security and defence orbit, thanks to Finland and Sweden, which broke with decades of neutrality after Russia's invasion of Ukraine and saw their enormous vulnerability to Putin's unpredictability and opted to join the military conclave.
In this regard, Calvo Albero comments that the situation in NATO is somewhat paradoxical: on the one hand, the Alliance as such has already been strengthened by the entry of Sweden and Finland, because they are two countries that greatly strengthen the Northern Flank, especially Sweden, which has a powerful industry, and the Arctic, which could become a strategic scenario for the future, is also being reinforced.
"But on the other hand, the threat from Russia continues; the war in Ukraine continues and destabilisation could spread to other countries; we have Moldova with problems with Transnistria. Moldova is a small country, not a member of the EU, not a member of NATO; and we have Belarus, which is an unstable country, or, not forgetting the risks in the Caucasus where there are still conflicts. NATO is in a very complicated situation," he adds.
A few days ago, French President Emmanuel Macron brought together a number of European leaders to, among other things, propose sending troops to Ukraine. Recently, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauséda said that Macron's proposal should be supported and said he was ready to contribute to sending troops to Ukrainian territory.
Asked about this, Colonel Calvo Albero pointed out that it is possible for Russia to attack a NATO country, but also asked to consider the Russian army's own situation at the moment.
"Russia has not advanced more than 70 kilometres from the Ukrainian border, it has not been able to reach Odessa, I wonder with what capabilities it is going to attack the Baltics or Poland itself; the Russian army has suffered enormous casualties, its capacity is limited on the ground. They were wrong when they thought that the weak Ukrainian army would not resist them," he says with conviction.
What do the coming months hold for geopolitics?
We will be influenced by decisions in the United States, and then there are the elections. As far as Ukraine is concerned, if the US Congress does not quickly come up with this 60 billion dollar aid package, it is very difficult for it to go ahead as the elections approach; as far as what needs to be settled after the summer is concerned, nothing will be done, not even the slightest bit.
This, the military specialist argues, only adds to the uncertainty: "The world needs decisions and that leadership from the United States that we will not see because it is in elections. What's more, we are waiting for a ceasefire phase in Ukraine, with European and hopefully American support. These months until May are decisive, then there will be nothing until after November when we will know who will govern in the White House.
Some people are already looking to move out of Europe, how bad will things get if Trump wins?
Trump works for what he understands to be US interests. He is a very isolationist man and his previous presidency let's say was peaceful... relatively peaceful. The thing is that there was not the scenario that there is now: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war in Gaza, the tensions in the Middle East.
Trump, especially at the time, was very aggressive towards China, I don't see him as a person prone to war because he is fundamentally an isolationist. He would only go to war if he sees an existential threat to the United States, although we should not lose sight of the fact that he does not make wars, but he does make decisions that then generate ways to create them.