2025 年 3 月 26 日
分享
節省
Allan Little 個人資料圖片
艾倫·利特爾
資深記者•@alittl
Trump has blown up the world order - and left Europe's leaders scrabbling
26 March 2025
Share
Save
Allan Little profile image
Allan Little
Senior correspondent•@alittl
BBC 這是一張經過處理的圖像，在世界地圖的背景下，有一個白色棋子和一個王棋的影子。英國廣播公司
這是第二次世界大戰結束以來西方安全面臨的最嚴重、也是持久的危機。正如一位專家所說，「川普主義將在他的總統任期結束後繼續存在」。但是，當美國退縮時，哪些國家有能力脫穎而出呢？
1947年2月的一個早晨9點，英國駐華盛頓大使因弗查佩爾勳爵（Lord Inverchapel）走進國務院，向美國國務卿喬治·馬歇爾遞交兩封用藍紙打印的外交函件，以強調其重要性：一封是關於希臘的，另一封是關於土耳其的。
英國精疲力竭、破產且欠下了美國的巨額債務，它告訴美國，它不能再繼續支持正在與共產黨武裝叛亂作鬥爭的希臘政府軍。英國已經宣布撤出巴勒斯坦和印度並減少在埃及的軍事存在。
美國立即意識到，希臘現在面臨真正危險，即落入共產黨統治，進而落入蘇聯控制。如果希臘退出，美國擔心土耳其可能是下一個，這樣莫斯科就將控制東地中海，其中可能包括至關重要的全球貿易路線蘇伊士運河。
幾乎在一夜之間，美國就填補了英國撤離後留下的真空。
蓋蒂圖片社 哈里·S·杜魯門總統在橢圓形辦公室發表電視講話蓋蒂圖片社
杜魯門總統說美國必須支持自由國家
哈里·杜魯門總統宣布：“美國的政策必須是支持那些反抗武裝少數派或外部壓力的壓迫的自由人民。”
這就是所謂的杜魯門主義的開始。其核心思想是：幫助捍衛國外民主對美國的國家利益至關重要。
隨後，美國推出了兩項重大舉措：馬歇爾計劃，一項旨在重建歐洲破碎經濟的大規模援助計劃，以及1949年成立北約，旨在保護民主國家免受當時已將控制範圍擴大到東歐的蘇聯的侵害。
我們很容易將此視為西方世界的領導權從英國轉移到美國的時刻。更準確地說，它是揭示它已經存在的那一刻。
美國傳統上是孤立主義者，受兩大洋的安全庇護，在第二次世界大戰後成為自由世界的領導者。隨著美國在全球範圍內展示其實力，它在戰後的幾十年中按照自己的形象重塑了世界的大部分地區。
嬰兒潮世代成長的世界，其外表、聲音和行為方式比以往任何時候都更像美國。並成為西方世界的文化、經濟和軍事霸主。
然而，美國地緣戰略野心所依據的基本假設現在似乎即將改變。
路透 美國總統川普在華盛頓會見內閣路透社
唐納德·川普是二戰以來第一位挑戰美國全球地位的美國總統
唐納德·川普是二戰以來第一位挑戰美國幾十年前為自己設定的角色的美國總統。他這樣做，對許多人來說，舊世界秩序似乎已經結束，而新世界秩序尚未形成。
問題是，哪些國家會挺身而出？而歐洲的安全面臨前所未有的壓力，目前正在四處奔波的歐洲領導人是否能找到適當的因應措施？
對杜魯門遺產的挑戰
川普總統對1945年後國際秩序的批評可以追溯到幾十年前。近40年前，他在三家美國報紙上刊登整版廣告，批評美國對捍衛世界民主的承諾。
他在 1987 年寫道：「幾十年來，日本和其他國家一直在利用美國。為什麼這些國家不向美國賠償我們為保護其利益而損失的傷亡和數十億美元呢？
“全世界都在嘲笑美國的政客，因為我們保護著不屬於我們的船隻，這些船隻運載著我們不需要的石油，而這些石油的目的地卻是不會提供幫助的盟友。”
自第二次就職以來，他一直堅持這一立場。
而川普政府中一些人認為歐洲依賴美國，對此感到憤怒，這顯然在本週洩漏的有關空襲也門胡塞武裝的消息中有所體現。
在這些資訊中，一個名為副總裁JD Vance的帳號寫道，歐洲國家可能會從這次攻擊中受益。文章稱：“我只是不想再為歐洲提供援助。”
另一個帳戶名為國防部長皮特·赫格塞斯，他在三分鐘後做出回應：“副部長：我完全贊同你對歐洲搭便車行為的厭惡。這太可悲了。”
路透 美國副總統 JD Vance 聆聽川普總統發表演講路透社
在洩露的信息中，一個名為副總裁JD Vance的帳戶寫道：“我只是不想再救助歐洲。”
川普本人的立場似乎不僅限於批評那些利用美國慷慨的人。在其第二任總統任期伊始，他似乎對俄羅斯總統普丁表示了歡迎，並告訴俄羅斯，烏克蘭不會獲得北約成員資格，也不要指望收回被俄羅斯奪走的領土。
許多人認為，這等於在談判尚未開始就洩漏了兩個重要的籌碼。他顯然沒有向俄羅斯索取任何回報。
另一方面，一些川普的支持者認為普丁是一位強而有力的領導人，體現了他們所認同的許多保守價值觀。
對某些人來說，普丁是「反覺醒戰爭」的盟友。
路透社 美國總統川普和俄羅斯總統普丁在2017年11月11日越南峴港亞太經合組織峰會的家庭合影中交談路透社
川普告訴俄羅斯，烏克蘭不會獲得北約成員資格，也不要指望收復失去的領土
目前，美國的外交政策至少在某種程度上受到文化戰爭的需要所驅動。歐洲的安全已陷入美國立場的兩種極端且相互對立的鬥爭。
有些人認為，這種分歧不僅與川普的特定觀點有關，歐洲不能只是坐等川普任期結束。
倫敦皇家聯合服務研究所（RUSI）高級研究員艾德·阿諾德認為：“美國正在脫離歐洲價值觀。” “這對歐洲人來說很難接受，因為這意味著問題具有結構性、文化性，並且可能是長期性的。”
“我認為，就川普個人而言，美國當前的發展軌跡將持續下去。我認為川普主義將在他的總統任期結束後繼續存在。”
北約第五條“岌岌可危”
川普政府表示，美國將不再是歐洲安全的主要保障者，歐洲國家應該負責自己的國防並支付費用。
總統本月稍早表示：“如果（北約國家）不付錢，我就不會為他們辯護。不，我不會為他們辯護。”
近80年來，歐洲安全的基石一直是《北大西洋公約》第5條，該條規定，對北約一個成員國的攻擊就是對所有成員國的攻擊。
上個月，就在訪問白宮之前，英國首相基爾·斯塔默爵士在唐寧街接受我的採訪時表示，他很滿意美國仍然是北約的主要成員國，而且川普個人仍然致力於遵守第五條款。
其他人不太確定。
Shutterstock 美國總統川普和北約秘書長馬克呂特在華盛頓白宮橢圓形辦公室舉行會晤Shutterstock
川普總統本月稍早表示，如果北約國家未能履行財政承諾，他將不會為其提供保護。 （與北約秘書長馬克‧呂特合照）
上屆保守黨政府的國防大臣本華萊士 (Ben Wallace) 本月稍早告訴我：「我認為第五條已經岌岌可危了。
「如果包括英國在內的歐洲不採取行動，不大力投資國防並認真對待這個問題，那麼我們所知道的北約就有可能走向終結，《條約》第五條也將走向終結。
“現在，我不會拿我的家當打賭說如果俄羅斯發動襲擊，憲法第五條款就會被觸發……我當然不會想當然地認為美國會出手相救。”
法國埃拉貝研究所的民調顯示，目前有近四分之三的法國人認為美國不是法國的盟友。英國和丹麥這兩個歷史上都親美的國家，其中大多數人現在也對美國持負面看法。
「川普對北約造成的損害可能是無法彌補的，」長期批評川普的保守派評論員、作家、華盛頓特區布魯金斯學會高級研究員羅伯特·卡根 (Robert Kagan) 認為。
「聯盟所依賴的美國擔保至少可以說不再可靠」。
然而，川普絕非第一個要求歐洲理順國防開支的美國總統。 2016年，巴拉克·歐巴馬敦促北約盟國加強防禦，他說：“歐洲有時對自身的防禦感到自滿。”
「西方分裂」已經開始了嗎？
這一切對普丁來說都是好消息。他去年表示：“整個歐洲-大西洋安全體係正在我們眼前崩潰。” “歐洲在全球經濟發展中處於邊緣地位，深陷移民等挑戰的混亂，喪失了國際自主權和文化認同。”
3月初，即澤連斯基在白宮與川普和萬斯舉行災難性的會晤三天后，克里姆林宮發言人宣稱「西方已經開始分裂」。
路透 美國總統川普在華盛頓白宮會見烏克蘭總統弗拉基米爾澤連斯基路透社
本月初，澤連斯基在白宮與川普和萬斯的緊張會晤促使克里姆林宮發言人宣布“西方的分裂已經開始”
「看看俄羅斯在歐洲的目標，」皇家國際事務研究所歐洲計畫負責人阿米達·範裡傑 (Armida van Rij) 說。 「其目標是破壞歐洲穩定。削弱北約，迫使美國從這裡撤軍。
“目前，你可以說‘滴答、滴答、幾乎滴答’。因為它正在破壞歐洲的穩定性。它正在削弱北約。它還沒有讓美國從歐洲撤軍，但幾個月後，誰知道我們會在哪裡？”
“我們忘記了歷史的教訓”
歐洲面臨的最大挑戰之一是如何充分武裝自己。八十年來對美國強權的依賴使許多歐洲民主國家暴露無遺。
例如，自冷戰高峰期以來，英國已將軍費開支削減了近 70%。 （冷戰結束後，即 20 世紀 90 年代初，歐洲享受了和平紅利，並開始了長達數十年的削減國防開支的進程。）
「（冷戰期間）我們擁有巨額預算，並且獲得了和平紅利，」華萊士說。 「現在，你可以說這是有道理的。
“問題是我們從和平紅利變成了企業掠奪。[國防部]只是成為獲取資金的首選部門。而這正是我們忘記歷史教訓的地方。”
上個月，總理向國會表示，到 2027 年，英國的國防開支將從 GDP 的 2.3% 增加到 2.5%。但這足夠嗎？
華萊士認為：“僅僅停滯不前是不夠的。” “修復我們所需的問題以增強我們的部署能力以及填補美國人離開後的空白是不夠的。”
Getty Images 布魯塞爾北約秘書長卡林頓勳爵 (Lord Carrington) 舉行新聞發布會的會議桌（1984 年 12 月 12 日）蓋蒂圖片社
在川普的領導下，美國是否還能保衛其北約盟友仍是個未知數
此外還有更廣泛的軍事招募問題。華萊士認為：“西方國家的軍事招募正在急劇下降，不僅僅是英國。”
“目前，年輕人沒有參軍。這是一個問題。”
但德國新任總理弗里德里希·梅爾茨表示，歐洲必須擺脫對美國的依賴。而「歐洲化」的北約將需要建立起一個本土的歐洲軍工綜合體，以提供目前只有美國才具備的能力。
其他人也認為歐洲必須在軍事上更加自力更生——但有些人擔心並非所有歐洲國家都同意這一點。
歐洲改革中心副主任伊恩邦德說：“目前的情況是，東歐國家總體上不需要收到這份備忘錄。” “越往西走，問題就越嚴重，直到到達西班牙和意大利。”
阿諾德表示同意：“現在歐洲的觀點是，這實際上不再是一個爭論，而是我們如何做、以及我們所做的速度如何的爭論，但我們現在就需要這麼做。”
建構新的世界秩序
歷史學家蒂莫西·加頓·阿什 (Timothy Garton Ash) 指出，目前只有美國才能提供一些「非常重要的東西」。
他說：「這些就是所謂的戰略推動因素。」「衛星、情報、愛國者防空飛彈是唯一能夠擊落俄羅斯彈道飛彈的武器。三到五年內，我們（美國以外的國家）應該力爭擁有自己的同類武器。
“在這個過渡過程中，我們將從美國主導的北約轉變為一個高度歐洲化的北約，其軍隊，加上各國軍隊和歐盟的力量，有能力保衛歐洲——即使美國總統說‘別把我們插手這件事’。”
問題是如何實現這一目標。
範裡傑女士強調，她認為歐洲確實需要建立一個歐洲所有的歐洲國防工業基礎——但她預見到會遇到困難。
“真正困難的是歐洲內部對於如何真正做到這一點以及是否真正做到這一點存在分歧。”
Getty Images 哈里·S·杜魯門總統（1884 年 - 1972 年）簽署《北大西洋公約》，標誌著北約的開始蓋蒂圖片社
美國前總統哈里·S·杜魯門（1884-1972）簽署《北大西洋公約》，正式成立北約
歐盟委員會和專家們幾十年來一直在試圖弄清楚這種防禦措施如何發揮作用。 “由於既得國家利益，這歷來都是非常困難的......所以這不會容易。”
同時，川普似乎準備好翻開後冷戰時期以規則為基礎的國際秩序的新篇章，在這個秩序中，主權國家可以自由選擇自己的命運和聯盟。
他似乎與弗拉基米爾·普丁有著共同的願望，那就是希望建立一個大國不受國際公認法律約束的世界，可以自由地將自己的意志強加給較小、較弱的國家，就像俄羅斯在沙皇帝國和蘇聯帝國時期所做的那樣。這意味著重返二戰後40年來一直存在的「利益範圍」體系。
我們不知道如果北約國家遭到攻擊，唐納德·川普究竟會怎麼做。但問題是，美國援助的保證已不再是理所當然的。這意味著歐洲必須做出反應。它所面臨的挑戰似乎是保持團結，最終實現自身國防資金的籌集，並避免被捲入任何大國的「勢力範圍」。
BBC InDepth是網站和應用程式上最優質分析的主頁，它以新穎的視角挑戰假設，並對當今的重大問題進行深入報導。我們也展示來自 BBC Sounds 和 iPlayer 的發人深省的內容。您可以點擊下面的按鈕向我們發送有關「深入」部分的回饋。
更多來自 InDepth 的文章
Rachel Reeves 在春季聲明發布前感受到了壓力
俄羅斯下一步將採取什麼行動？試圖保護自己不受普丁影響的國家
川普礦產「世紀協議」的意外連鎖反應
Trump has blown up the world order - and left Europe's leaders scrabbling
26 March 2025
Share
Save
Allan Little profile image
Allan Little
Senior correspondent•@alittl
BBC A treated image of a white pawn chess piece with the shadow of a king piece against the backdrop of a world map.BBC
This is the gravest crisis for Western security since the end of World War Two, and a lasting one. As one expert puts it, "Trumpism will outlast his presidency". But which nations are equipped to step to the fore as the US stands back?
At 09.00 one morning in February 1947, the UK ambassador in Washington, Lord Inverchapel, walked into the State Department to hand the US Secretary of State, George Marshall, two diplomatic messages printed on blue paper to emphasise their importance: one on Greece, the other on Turkey.
Exhausted, broke and heavily in debt to the United States, Britain told the US that it could no longer continue its support for the Greek government forces that were fighting an armed Communist insurgency. Britain had already announced plans to pull out of Palestine and India and to wind down its presence in Egypt.
The United States saw immediately that there was now a real danger that Greece would fall to the Communists and, by extension, to Soviet control. And if Greece went, the United States feared that Turkey could be next, giving Moscow control of the Eastern Mediterranean including, potentially, the Suez Canal, a vital global trade route.
Almost overnight, the United States stepped into the vacuum left by the departing British.
Getty Images President Harry S. Truman speaks during a television address from the Oval OfficeGetty Images
President Truman said the United States must support free nations
"It must be a policy of the United States," President Harry Truman announced, "to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."
It was the start of what became known as the Truman Doctrine. At its heart was the idea that helping to defend democracy abroad was vital to the United States' national interests.
There followed two major US initiatives: the Marshall Plan, a massive package of assistance to rebuild the shattered economies of Europe, and the creation of Nato in 1949, which was designed to defend democracies from a Soviet Union that had now extended its control over the eastern part of Europe.
It is easy to see this as the moment that leadership of the western world passed from Britain to the United States. More accurately it is the moment that revealed that it already had.
The United States, traditionally isolationist and safely sheltered by two vast oceans, had emerged from World War Two as the leader of the free world. As America projected its power around the globe, it spent the post-war decades remaking much of the world in its own image.
The baby boomer generation grew up in a world that looked, sounded and behaved more like the United States than ever before. And it became the western world's cultural, economic and military hegemon.
Yet the fundamental assumptions on which the United States has based its geostrategic ambitions now look set to change.
Reuters US President Trump Meets with his Cabinet in WashingtonReuters
Donald Trump is the first US president since World War Two to challenge America's global role
Donald Trump is the first US President since World War Two to challenge the role that his country set for itself many decades ago. And he is doing this in such a way that, to many, the old world order appears to be over - and the new world order has yet to take shape.
The question is, which nations will step forward? And, with the security of Europe under greater strain than at any time almost in living memory, can its leaders, who are currently scrabbling around, find an adequate response?
A challenge to the Truman legacy
President Trump's critique of the post-1945 international order dates back decades. Nearly 40 years ago he took out full-page advertisements in three US newspapers to criticise the United States' commitment to the defence of the world's democracies.
"For decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States," he wrote in 1987. "Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests?
"The world is laughing at America's politicians as we protect ships we don't own, carrying oil we don't need, destined for allies who won't help."
It's a position he has repeated since his second inauguration.
And the fury felt by some in his administration for what they perceive as European reliance on the United States was apparently shown in the leaked messages about air strikes on Houthis in Yemen that emerged this week.
In the messages, an account named Vice-President JD Vance wrote that European countries might benefit from the strikes. It said: "I just hate bailing Europe out again."
Another account, identified as Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, responded three minutes later: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC."
Reuters U.S. Vice President JD Vance listens as President Donald Trump delivers a speechReuters
In leaked messages, an account named Vice President JD Vance wrote: "I just hate bailing Europe out again."
Trump's own position appears to go beyond criticising those he says are taking advantage of the United State's generosity. At the start of his second presidency, he seemed to embrace Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling Russia that Ukraine would not be granted Nato membership and that it should not expect to get back the territory it has lost to Russia.
Many saw this as giving away two major bargaining chips before talks had even started. He apparently asked Russia for nothing in return.
On the flipside, certain Trump supporters see in Putin a strong leader who embodies many of the conservative values they themselves share.
To some, Putin is an ally in a "war on woke".
Reuters U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia"s President Vladimir Putin talk during the family photo session at the APEC Summit in Danang, Vietnam November 11, 2017Reuters
Trump told Russia that Ukraine would not be granted Nato membership and should not expect to regain the territory it has lost
The United States' foreign policy is now driven, in part at least, by the imperatives of its culture wars. The security of Europe has become entangled in the battle between two polarised and mutually antagonistic visions of what the United States stands for.
Some think the division is about more than Trump's particular views and that Europe can not just sit tight waiting for his term in office to end.
"The US is becoming divorced from European values," argues Ed Arnold, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London. "That's difficult [for Europeans] to swallow because it means that it's structural, cultural and potentially long-term. "
"I think the current trajectory of the US will outlast Trump, as a person. I think Trumpism will outlast his presidency."
Nato Article 5 'is on life support'
The Trump White House has said it will no longer be the primary guarantor of European security, and that European nations should be responsible for their own defence and pay for it.
"If [Nato countries] don't pay, I'm not going to defend them. No, I'm not going to defend them," the president said earlier this month.
For almost 80 years, the cornerstone of European security has been embedded in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one member state of the alliance is an attack on all.
In Downing Street last month, just before his visit to the White House, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told me during an interview that he was satisfied that the United States remained the leading member of Nato and that Trump personally remained committed to Article 5.
Others are less sure.
Shutterstock US President Donald Trump and Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in WashingtonShutterstock
President Trump said earlier this month that he would not defend Nato countries if they failed to meet their financial commitments. (Pictured with Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte)
Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary in the last Conservative government, told me earlier this month: "I think Article 5 is on life support.
"If Europe, including the United Kingdom, doesn't step up to the plate, invest a lot on defence and take it seriously, it's potentially the end of the Nato that we know and it'll be the end of Article 5.
"Right now, I wouldn't bet my house that Article 5 would be able to be triggered in the event of a Russian attack… I certainly wouldn't take for granted that the United States would ride to the rescue."
According to polling by the French company Institut Elabe, nearly three quarters of French people now think that the United States is not an ally of France. A majority in Britain and a very large majority in Denmark, both historically pro-American countries, now have unfavourable views of the United States as well.
"The damage Trump has done to Nato is probably irreparable," argues Robert Kagan, a conservative commentator, author and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington DC who has been a long time critic of Trump.
"The alliance relied on an American guarantee that is no longer reliable, to say the least".
And yet Trump is by no means the first US president to tell Europe to get its defence spending in order. In 2016 Barack Obama urged Nato allies to increase theirs, saying: "Europe has sometimes been complacent about its own defence."
Has a 'fragmentation of the West' begun?
All of this is great news for Putin. "The entire system of Euro-Atlantic security is crumbling before our eyes," he said last year. "Europe is being marginalised in global economic development, plunged into the chaos of challenges such as migration, and losing international agency and cultural identity."
In early March, three days after Volodymyr Zelensky's disastrous meeting with Trump and Vance in the White House, a Kremlin spokesman declared "the fragmentation of the West has begun".
Reuters U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in WashingtonReuters
Zelensky's tense meeting with Trump and Vance at the White House earlier this month prompted a Kremlin spokesman to declare that "the fragmentation of the West has begun"
"Look at Russia's objectives in Europe," says Armida van Rij, head of the Europe programme at Chatham House. "Its objectives are to destabilise Europe. It is to weaken Nato, and get the Americans to withdraw their troops from here.
"And at the moment you could go 'tick, tick and almost tick'. Because it is destabilising Europe. It is weakening Nato. It hasn't gone as far as to get the US to withdraw troops from Europe, but in a few months time, who knows where we'll be?"
'We forgot the lessons of our history'
One of the great challenges Europe, in particular, faces from here is the question of how to arm itself adequately. Eighty years of reliance on the might of the United States has left many European democracies exposed.
Britain, for example, has cut military spending by nearly 70% since the height of the Cold War. (At the end of the Cold War, in the early 1990s, Europe allowed itself a peace dividend and began a decades-long process of reducing defence spending.)
"We had a big budget [during the Cold War] and we took a peace dividend," says Wallace. "Now, you could argue that that was warranted.
"The problem is we went from a peace dividend to corporate raiding. [Defence] just became the go-to department to take money from. And that is where we just forgot the lessons of our history."
The prime minister told parliament last month that Britain would increase defence spending from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027. But is that enough?
"It isn't enough just to stand still," argues Wallace. "It wouldn't be enough to fix the things we need to make ourselves more deployable, and to plug the gaps if the Americans left."
Getty Images A conference table ready for a press conference for Lord Carrington, the Secretary General of NATO in Brussels (12th December 1984)Getty Images
Uncertainty remains over whether the US, under Trump, can still be relied upon to defend its Nato allies
Then there is the wider question of military recruitment. "The West is in freefall in its military recruiting, it's not just Britain," argues Wallace.
"At the moment, young people aren't joining the military. And that's a problem."
But Germany's new Chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, has said Europe must make itself independent of the United States. And "Europeanising" NATO will require the build up of an indigenous European military-industrial complex capable of delivering capabilities that currently only the United States has.
Others share the view that Europe must become more self reliant militarily - but some are concerned that not all of Europe is on board with this.
"Where we are at the moment is that the East Europeans by and large, don't need to get the memo," says Ian Bond, deputy director, Centre for European Reform. "The further west you go, the more problematic it becomes until you get to Spain and Italy."
Mr Arnold agrees: "The view in Europe now is this isn't really a debate anymore, it's a debate of how we do it and maybe how quickly we do it, but we need to do this now."
Piecing together a new world order
There is a short list of "very important things" that only the United States currently provides, according to historian Timothy Garton Ash.
"These are the so-called strategic enablers," he says. "The satellites, the intelligence, the Patriot air defence batteries, which are the only ones that can take down Russian ballistic missiles. And within three to five years we [countries other than the US] should aim to have our own version of these.
"And in this process of transition, from the American-led Nato [the idea is] you will have a Nato that is so Europeanised that its forces, together with national forces and EU capacities, are capable of defending Europe - even if an American president says 'leave us out of this'."
The question is how to achieve this.
Ms van Rij stresses that, in her view, Europe does need to build a Europe-owned European defence industrial base - but she foresees difficulties.
"What's really difficult are the divisions within Europe on how to actually do this and whether to actually do this."
Getty Images President Harry S. Truman (1884 - 1972) signing the North Atlantic Treaty which marked the beginning of NATOGetty Images
Former U.S President Harry S. Truman (1884–1972) signs the North Atlantic Treaty, formally establishing NATO
The European Commission and experts have been trying to figure out how this defence may work for several decades. "It has traditionally been very difficult because of vested national interests... So this is not going to be easy."
In the meantime, Trump appears ready to turn the page on the post-Cold War rules-based international order of sovereign states that are free to choose their own destinies and alliances.
What he seems to share with Vladimir Putin is a desire for a world in which the major powers, unconstrained by internationally agreed laws, are free to impose their will on smaller, weaker nations, as Russia has traditionally done in both its Tsarist and Soviet Empires. That would mean a return to the "spheres of interest" system that prevailed for 40 years after the Second World War.
We don't know exactly what Donald Trump would do were a Nato country to be attacked. But the point is that the guarantee of US help can no longer be taken for granted. That means Europe has to react. Its challenge appears to be to stay united, finally make good on funding its own defence, and avoid being drawn into the "sphere of influence" of any of the big powers.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
More from InDepth
Rachel Reeves is feeling the heat ahead of her Spring Statement
Russia's next move? The countries trying to Putin-proof themselves
The unexpected knock-on effect of Trump's minerals 'deal of the century'
A thin, grey banner promoting the US Politics Unspun newsletter. On the right, there is an image of North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher, wearing a blue suit and shirt and grey tie. Behind him is a visualisation of the Capitol Building on vertical red, grey and blue stripes. The banner reads: "The newsletter that cuts through the noise.”
Follow the twists and turns of Trump's second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher's weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.
Greece
Volodymyr Zelensky
Donald Trump
Nato
Vladimir Putin
United States
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。