Europeans, take note: American isolationism is not a threat tied exclusively to the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House. In reality, it is a strong current in American public opinion. Other presidents have promised to scale back international commitments and focus on domestic priorities, but then allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by events and reneged on those promises. Trump was the only one who wanted to go with the flow and not fight against it. But how long can a nation's leaders continue to do the opposite of what the people want? Perhaps Vladimir Putin is also wondering the same thing. The tribute Putin paid to Joe Biden went almost unnoticed. Yes, when Putin appears to wink at Trump, it's a front-page headline, it creates a scandal and confirms that there is an infamous connection between the two. However, when Putin says something good about Biden, he lapses into such indifference that it borders on self-censorship. Still, it is truly unique, just days after telling American journalist Tucker Carlson Putin is back for interviews. This time from Russian television. This second interview was more succinct and less ideological and contained a strong appreciation for Biden, real electoral support. Putin hoped for the re-election of the incumbent Democratic president, he said he would prefer to negotiate with a Biden 2 because he has more experience, he is competent, he is “predictable.” He even defended him against accusations of advanced age, forgetfulness and occasional lack of clarity.
Here is the mad leader theory again (to explain the Pax Trumpiana)
As for Biden's “predictability”, Putin seems to confirm the “Mad Man” theory that I have already mentioned on other occasions. Among those who acknowledge that there have been fewer wars in the four years of Trump's presidency than under Obama and Biden, some are dusting off the theory that was in vogue in Richard Nixon's time. Through his unpredictability, Trump would have managed to keep Putin and Iran at bay. Despite his friendly attitude towards autocrats like Putin and Xi Jinping, no one can predict what Trump will do given his reputation as an impulsive egomaniac who does not listen to expert advice. In this sense, Trump would act as a kind of “human deterrent” – again according to the insanity theory. According to this interpretation, Putin prefers to negotiate with good old Joe. Which isn't exactly invincible in international affairs. Ultimately, the stereotype that Biden is superior to Trump in terms of foreign policy experience is irrefutable and irrelevant. All of Biden's experiences neither stopped Putin from invading Ukraine nor stopped Hamas from carrying out the October 7 massacre; it did not prevent China from multiplying aggression in its seas; It did not stop Iran from increasing its destabilizing power across the Middle East.
America in retreat: a promise since 1992
The other question on which Putin may have a different opinion than the current prevailing opinion in the West concerns the future of American isolationism. Yes, Biden announces that if re-elected, he will remain loyal to his alliances and respect NATO's Article 5, which provides for the obligation to defend any member state under attack. Trump says virtually the opposite. But does American isolationism or interventionism depend only on them? Or are there deeper currents at work that will influence America's role regardless of who is in the White House? An analysis by my colleague Peter Baker in the New York Times helps here. He reminds us that “every American president since the end of the Cold War has come to office promising to focus on domestic priorities to correct an excess of attention paid abroad.” Bill Clinton defeated the internationalist George Bush Sr. (winner of the first Gulf War in 1991 at the head of a broad coalition of allies) by promising to “focus like a laser beam on the economy,” but then with the Balkan wars and the While Clinton himself was faced with NATO eastward expansion very concerned about the areas liberated from the Soviet Empire. George Bush Junior campaigned globally against Clinton's “humanitarian wars,” but then became president of 9/11 and military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 because he was one of the few in his party to oppose the invasion of Iraq and pledged to withdraw from Afghanistan. Instead, he brought globalism to its peak: he increased the military presence in Afghanistan for a long time (with the “surge” or increase in troops), he drew NATO into the attack against Gaddafi in Libya. Obama was also the last globalist on trade: he wanted to sign more free trade agreements at any cost, but the consensus collapsed under his feet and all his successors or potential successors (from Hillary Clinton to Biden) made the trade agreements free trade. Biden also began his presidency with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, that is, the fulfillment of a wish for isolationism: a withdrawal that was very poorly implemented but lived up to the promises. Then he had to face Putin's invasion and the Hamas massacre.
Isolationists on the left too
The overall picture – confirmed by the polls – is of an America that wants to retreat home but cannot because unforeseen events force its leaders to abandon the promises made to voters and with which they won the elections to tread on feet. How long can this divergence last? If isolationism is the prevailing mood, if Trump is the only one pushing it to its extreme consequences, is it conceivable that there will continue to be leaders in the White House who promise Americans one thing and then do the exact opposite? It is this situation that may give Putin hope: Biden will not be able to row against the tide forever. Isolationism doesn't just exist on the right. The broad pro-Palestinian currents to Biden's left believe that American foreign policy has always been imperialist and essentially criminal. All this should give Europeans the illusion that “it is enough to defeat Trump in the elections” and everything will go back to the way it was before.
Parasitic Europeans? Obama said it
From the presidential pulpit, Barack Obama used the term “free riders” to describe the Europeans in NATO. Public transport passengers who do not pay for the ticket are considered free riders. Parasites, profiteers, squatters. Trump is in the news, and rightly so, because he is alluding to the US leaving NATO. But the globalist Obama has already admitted the unsustainability of the current equilibrium with this expression about “free riders.” Despite his will, Obama realized that American voters and taxpayers did not want to pay for the security of “parasites.” In the latest issue of the American geopolitical magazine Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, of which I am a member, the Italian scientist Nathalie Tocci, together with other experts, writes a collective analysis on the topic: How to protect Europe from Trump? to return? One fact I draw from this is that despite the self-congratulations with which the Europeans reward themselves every time they approve an aid package for Ukraine, the European contribution is only 55% of the American one. And yes, America is lagging because of the obstructionism of Republicans in Congress. Let's not talk about the state of the European war industry: tiny, fragmented, completely unsuited to the responsibility of defending the continent. And who is seriously increasing recruitment into the armed forces?
French nuclear protection: who believes that?
Then there is the nuclear question. The convulsions caused by Trump have revived a slogan that I have known since my youth: the idea of an autonomous defense of Europe through a French nuclear umbrella replacing the American one. Since it has been talked about idly for decades, I will keep it brief. First problem: The Force de Frappe demanded by President General Charles de Gaulle at the time is tiny and clearly inadequate compared to the arsenals of Russia and China. Secondly, no French president has ever taken the decisive step that would make it possible to put it at the service of Europe, subjecting its use to an integrated command and not to a decision from Paris. And none of the European partners trust that France would risk the nuclear annihilation of its territory in order to defend Rome and Milan, Berlin and Hamburg, Brussels and Rotterdam, Warsaw and Copenhagen with its nuclear missiles. A serious debate on these and other issues has yet to begin. The Trump shock could even be healthy if it at least served to awaken Europeans from their torpor. They are more likely to push them into a tacit surrender to Russia. Taking the opposite path – being ready to seriously defend oneself even without America – means not only increasing military spending to up to 2% of GDP (Italy hasn't even done this: and promised it in Obama's time), but a lot to do, way up there. It doesn't seem to me a political fiction to read this behind Putin's support for Biden: the tsar believes that sooner or later America will give up on Europe, because in his heart (in the voters' priorities) it has already given up on it. Otherwise, Biden himself would not have so categorically ruled out direct US intervention to defend Ukraine two years ago. These profound currents are worth more than an Article 5 in the text of a treaty created 75 years ago. When the time comes to risk the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers to save other nations unwilling or unable to protect themselves, there will be no notary in Washington to enforce the sanctity of treaty obligations. In this sense, Trump just tells us, with his usual brutal arrogance, that “the king is naked.” But since he's already naked, it's no problem for Putin to continue maintaining his relationship with old Joe. What does the killing of Navalny, which of course goes unpunished and for which Putin will pay any price, mean other than that the status quo is fine for the tsar?