The symbolism of the fateful 1989 summit between President George H. W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev off the coast of Malta wasn’t lost on any observer. It was on this tiny Mediterranean island in 1945 that World War II’s victorious Western powers met to determine the fate of half the continent. There, they settled on an order that held for most of the remainder of the 20th Century. And it was off the coast of this island where the superpowers that had divided the world into two opposing camps for nearly half a century agreed to bury their differences.
Off the coast of Malta just weeks after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Gorbachev and Bush met aboard the Soviet cruise ship Maxim Gorky with the urgent mission of stabilizing Europe and ensuring a soft landing for the Warsaw Pact powers transitioning away from Moscow. The placidity of the conference stood in stark contrast to the stormy seas that raged outside their porthole windows. On the eve of the Soviet Union’s implosion, the mutual understanding that emerged from this meeting set the terms for a new geopolitical order and put an end to the last great conflict of the 20th Century.
“President Bush said something about America’s allies wanting to stay in Europe, and Gorbachev said ‘We want the United States to stay in Europe, too. The United States is a European power,’” recalled Condoleezza Rice, who at the time served as a Soviet expert on President Bush’s National Security Council. She noted that, for 44 years, Soviet doctrine had no higher objective than decoupling the United States from its Western European allies. In that moment, this long-standing Soviet strategic objective ceased to exist. “This was an extraordinary statement,” Rice added. “It stuck with everybody.”
This foundational moment has influenced just about anyone with a passing interest in American grand strategy, history, or geopolitics. Everyone, it seems, save for Donald Trump. In an interview with the Washington Post on Monday, the celebrity candidate declared his intention to do what the combined diplomatic, clandestine, and military might of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could not. He laid the foundations of a foreign policy doctrine that would result in the extrication of the United States from European affairs and would cede the continent to a united Germany and an aggressive, revisionist Russia.
To peruse Trump’s comments to the Post regarding European security is to be privy to an elegy for the stability and peace that has characterized the post-Cold War period. Only a shameless cynic would survey the geostrategic landscape over the last quarter century and conclude that it would better serve America’s interests if the world’s revisionist powers were left to hash out their lingering disputes in an unstable, multi-polar environment. Donald Trump is precisely that cynic.
It is ironic that Trump would reportedly offer praise for Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State George P. Shultz, who was such an admirer of Rice’s encyclopedic knowledge of the region and the dynamics of statecraft. Trump apparently has no regard for Schultz’s view of America’s role on the continent or the grave threat posed by the revanchist Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is now actively seeking to overturn the international order to which Gorbachev consented.
“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump apparently said of the European nation, a NATO aspirant, that was invaded by Russia in February of 2014 and which watched helplessly as portions of its territory were carved off and annexed into Russia proper. “They’re not doing anything. And I say: ‘Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.’”
To even ask this question is to betray a particular brand of proud ignorance and mulish solipsism. Where to begin? The history of Germany’s approach to power projection? Europe’s failed attempts to create a combined defense force? The interconnectivity of the European energy economy, and Russian petro-diplomacy? Ethnoreligious strife in Eastern Europe and the Balkans? The history of American doctrine toward Russia – from Kennan to Galbraith? How does one even begin to address this level of baseline unfamiliarity with the subject matter?
The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib observed on Monday that, on a host of policy and philosophical matters, a Trump nomination would radically transform the GOP. Seib’s focus was primarily on dogma related to domestic policy, but Trump’s brand of immodest nationalism would force the Republican Party to evolve on foreign policy, too.
The Republican Party has long pressured Barack Obama to do more to aid Ukraine in its effort to resist the bloody and artificial rebellion in the nation’s east, stoked by Moscow and fought by Russian irregular soldiers. Putin has paid almost no price for his aggression. Indeed, he was rewarded for his brazenness following Russia’s intervention in Syria with renewed legitimacy from a Western world desperate to avoid becoming bogged down in that conflict. Russia’s determination to pull on the threads that keep the international order from coming apart at the seams is perfectly fine with Trump. The reality television star has heaped praise upon the “strong” leader in the Kremlin, whose position is secured through repression and assassination. “Let Russia fight ISIS,” the real estate heir once insisted. Russia has now declared its intention to dramatically draw down its force posture in Syria after having executed only a paltry handful of airstrikes on ISIS positions, exposing Moscow’s apologists for precisely what they were. But don’t expect the Kremlin’s candidate to engage in any thoughtful introspection. In Trump’s imagination, reflective self-examination is tantamount to weakness.
Perhaps the greatest betrayal to the memories of the tens of thousands of Americans who devoted their lives to ensuring that their decedents never had to suffer through another great European war is Trump’s contention that the Atlantic Alliance no longer serves any purpose. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” bleated the New York City dilettante, “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.” This is a manner of isolationism – yes, isolationism – that is unbecoming of an American statesman. For all his suspicion of raw American power, even Barack Obama has decried “free riders” and sought to force America’s allies to abide by their treaty obligation to spend the minimum equivalent of 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Trump would demonstrate that it is America that hopes to ride for free on the accumulated inertia of peace right up until it collapses (at which point, it would be everyone else’s fault).
Donald Trump sees everything in terms of financial – as opposed to human – cost. Trump has made dubious claims about the “cost” of free trade with China, revealing his erroneous belief that the term “trade deficit” is a fancy way of saying “inequitable transaction.” He further contends that America’s support for its East Asian allies like South Korea and Japan are “costing” the United States too much and that we are not fairly “reimbursed” for the peace of mind provided by the extension of America’s security umbrella to its allies in the Pacific. This is not how an American president with a proper understanding of the post-War order thinks; this is how a gangster approaches a protection racket. The remarkable disrespect this candidate has repeatedly shown for history, statecraft, and responsible political discourse never ceases to amaze. None of it, however, is entertaining. It’s not a joke anymore. Those “advisors” who would sign their name to this debacle have made a grave error in judgment. The peace in Europe is collapsing before our eyes, and Trump’s contention is security on the continent is the primary responsibility of strategic rivals like Russia and Germany. Only for the woefully unenlightened would such a sentiment fail to chill the blood.
