Is America Abandoning Europe?

In 2007, Russia’s President Putin gave a now-infamous speech at the Munich Security Conference (MSC), announcing Russia’s new posture of hostility towards the US and Europe. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, many looked back at Putin’s 2007 Munich speech as a revealing moment of his intentions.

This year’s MSC could be a similar watershed. This time, the warning bells ring from across the Atlantic. US Vice President JD Vance delivered one of the most hostile speeches by a US official to Europe in decades. Rather than addressing the Russian or Chinese threats, Vance argued that Europe faced a “threat from within,” accusing the EU and national governments of censorship and ignoring popular demands on issues like illegal migration.

Meanwhile, away from Munich, US President Donald Trump held a phone call with Putin, setting the stage for negotiations between the US and Russia for a peace agreement in Ukraine – without involving European counterparts in the discussions. The day before, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced some of the US expectations from this deal: Ukraine should drop its NATO membership bid, European countries would need to provide the forces to enforce the agreement, and these forces would not be covered by NATO’s Article 5 guarantees.

The transatlantic picture in which the MSC took place was even bleaker. Since Trump’s inauguration one month ago, the new president had promised (and now imposed) tariffs against countries across the world, including Europe. He has threatened to annex the territory of allies like Canada and Denmark.

Normally, the MSC is an opportunity for the United States to reaffirm its commitment to Europe and the Atlantic alliance. This year, it could be remembered as the time when the US started the process of abandoning Europe – or even going aggressively after it.   

An attack on Europe

Vance’s speech and the reactions to it have dominated the discussions at the MSC. Although the conference theme was “multilateralization”, the real topic on everyone’s mind was: how would Trump’s second administration approach Europe?

As the pre-conference report argued: “Donald Trump’s presidential victory has buried the US post–Cold War foreign policy consensus that a grand strategy of liberal internationalism would best serve US interests.” That this consensus was gone was clearly visible in the conference. Despite perfunctory references to shared values, Vance’s speech did not talk about the alliance between Europe and North America, nor about the common threats and how to face them.

And he has voiced support for anti-EU parties. Vance pronounced his speech in Germany, just weeks before federal elections, and argued that there should not be “firewalls” in government – a clear reference to the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) which has so far been kept out of governing coalitions. After the speech, Vance met with the AfD leader.

Additionally, Vance criticized Romania for canceling its 2024 elections and accused the EU of censoring free speech. But Vance failed to acknowledge that the very election that brought Trump and him to power in November was the subject of major foreign interference by Russia, China, and Iran. Rather than sitting idly by, US agencies took active measures to counter these malign actions and prevent disruptions – like raising awareness, coordinating with the media, and keeping politics out of the fight. With his speech, Vance seems to be arguing for the exact opposite approach.

All these issues did not touch on security and defense, the core of the MSC’s discussions. But they did lure in the background of Vance’s speech. A few months ago, Vance argued that the EU should not regulate tech companies owned by Elon Musk. If the Europeans did so, he argued, the US should reduce its security commitments to NATO. Hence, American assurances could become bargaining chips to resolve other issues.   

How will the EU respond?

Vance’s Munich speech marks a new era in US relations with Europe. While the themes are not new – Trump has never been a fan of NATO, and enjoys courting Europe’s far-right – the extent of the rhetorical change cannot be understated. Ukraine’s President Zelensky, speaking in Munich the day after Vance, spelled out the challenge in clear terms: “We can’t rule out the possibility that America might say ‘no’ to Europe on issues that threaten it.”

The reaction from European leaders has been strong so far. EU Commission President Von der Leyen called for an emergency clause in the EU treaties to allow member states to boost defense spending [8]. French President Macron called for a summit of European leaders in Paris on Monday, February 17 – to sketch out a common position on the upcoming negotiations over Ukraine, and on making up for US security guarantees from Europe.

The greatest challenge, however, will be transforming outrage into meaningful action. Europeans have long ignored calls to take charge of their own security. Domestic constraints over spending, divisions and the continued belief that Uncle Sam will have their back have stood in the way of ambitious choices. Will this time be different?  

This opinion was written by Giuseppe Spatafora for the Anadolu news website.

Continue reading
Europe Says No to Trump’s Plan to Take Over Gaza, Transfer its People

Several European leaders, Wednesday, rejected US President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to “take over” Gaza and forcibly resettle its Palestinian population in other countries.

Germany

Dismissing the proposal, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said that the only way forward for peace is a negotiated two-state solution.


“It is clear that Gaza—like the West Bank and East Jerusalem—belongs to the Palestinians,” Baerbock said, warning that forcibly expelling the civilian population would violate international law and fuel further hatred.

She stressed that the UN, EU, and G7 have consistently opposed Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories.

France

France also swiftly rejected Trump’s proposal, reaffirming that Gaza should remain part of a future Palestinian state.


“The future of Gaza must be inscribed not in the perspective of control by a third State but in the framework of a future Palestinian State, under the aegis of the Palestinian Authority,” a French Foreign Ministry statement said.

“France reiterates its opposition to any forced displacement of the Palestinian population of Gaza, which would constitute a serious violation of international law, an attack on the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, but also a major obstacle to the two-state solution,” it added.


Britain

Responding to a question on Trump’s Gaza remark, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Palestinians in Gaza “must be allowed home, they must be allowed to rebuild, and we should be with them in that rebuild on the way to a two-state solution”


Spain

Spain also joined the chorus of disapproval, with Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares firmly rejecting the idea of US control over Gaza.

“Gaza is the land of the Palestinian Gazans. The Palestinian Gazans must stay in Gaza,” Albares said.

Spain reaffirmed its commitment to a future Palestinian state that includes Gaza as part of its territory.


Poland

Poland’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Szejna expressed support for a two-state solution and emphasized the need for Palestinian involvement in the peace process.

“Just like in the case of Ukraine, where we say that you can’t decide about Ukraine without Ukraine, if we’re talking about the peace process. Similarly, you can’t decide about Palestine without the Palestinians. This is Poland’s position,” Szejna said.

Slovenia

Slovenian Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon criticized Trump’s comments as reflective of a “deep ignorance of Palestinian history.”


Speaking from Lebanon, Fajon warned that such proposals could lead to further unrest and violence and stressed that Palestinians completely reject the idea of being displaced from their homeland.


Scotland

Scottish First Minister John Swinney also condemned the proposal, calling any suggestion of displacing Palestinians “unacceptable and dangerous.”

Swinney emphasized that the suffering of the people in Gaza must not be exacerbated by plans for forced relocation, following months of intense violence and loss of life in the region.

Further reaction

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) condemned Trump’s remarks, describing them as “illegal” and part of a “grotesque plan” that would lead to the mass ethnic cleansing of 2.3 million Palestinians.

“This is a blueprint for a crime of historic proportions,” said the PSC, highlighting that the plan would violate the Geneva Convention’s prohibition on the forcible transfer of populations.

The Muslim Council of Britain has criticized Trump’s plan, urging international action for Gaza’s reconstruction that is led by the Palestinian people themselves.

Wajid Akhter, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, warned that any attempt to reconstruct Gaza through displacement would amount to ethnic cleansing.

“Reconstruction without displacement is not only possible – it is the only acceptable path forward,” he stated.

Amnesty Denmark

Amnesty Denmark echoed the widespread rejection, with spokesperson Vibe Klarup drawing a stark comparison between Trump’s plan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

” (What) Trump is advocating here is, first of all, a real invasion of another people’s country,” Klarup said, adding that any US takeover of Gaza would be criminal and a grave breach of international law.

During a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on Tuesday, Trump said that the US “will take over” Gaza after relocating Palestinians elsewhere under a redevelopment plan that he claimed could turn the enclave into “the Riviera of the Middle East,” according to Anadolu.

Continue reading
To Piers Morgan: How Can The Killing of Women Children Be Justified as a ‘Moral Right’

British broadcaster and journalist Piers Morgan said Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including women and children, could be justified as a “moral right.”

In an interview this week with journalist Tucker Carlson on a rooftop in Saudi Arabia’s capital, Morgan discussed several topics, including the Israeli assault in Gaza and whether the U.S. should be funding it.

Carlson condemned Israel’s bombardment of civilians for over a year, which Morgan questioned as he said such bombing ‘wasn’t evil.’

Carlson said: ‘If you’re intentionally killing civilians, you probably shouldn’t beat your chest and brag about it… maybe you can make the case that you had to do it, but you should weep.’

‘Is it evil though?’ Morgan responded, to which Carlson argued: ‘To kill civilians on purpose? I think it is. Kids and children? Yeah.’

Morgan said he could see there being a ‘moral right’ to civilian deaths in wartime, saying: ‘If there is a world war that threatens the entire world, yes.’

When Carlson called his view ‘disgusting’, he walked back and said it could be justified ‘in a pure defensive action’ as the two journalists sparred over the assault.

‘To intentionally kill noncombatants, women and children, I think we can say that’s wrong,’ he concluded.

The two journalists moved onto the issue of whether the US should continue funding Israel’s assault in Gaza, after former President Joe Biden sent at least $17.9 billion in military aid since the start of the Israeli genocide in October 2023.

After Carlson repeated his calls for the US to stop supplying aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, Morgan questioned: ‘Why do you support Israel against Hamas? Why do you support giving them billions of dollars?’

‘I don’t,’ Carlson snapped back.


‘I support Israel in the sense that I really like Israel, I brought my family on vacation there… but (I support Israel) only to the extent that it helps the United States.’

Morgan said this was a hypocritical stance given his criticism of aid to Ukraine, saying his support merely ‘depends on which country’.

‘I don’t see a difference between (Israel’s bombing of Gaza) and what is happening in Ukraine,’ Morgan continued.

‘This is a long way away from America, there is no direct involvement with America or no mainland involvement, and yet you think it’s right that America supports Israel, but you don’t think it’s right that America supports Ukraine.’

Fifteen months of Israeli bombardment have reduced buildings to rubble and ash, leaving large areas of Gaza uninhabitable. More than 47,400 Palestinians were killed during the Israeli assault, with 70 percent of the victims being women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Continue reading
Trump Recycled!

By Saleem Ayoub Quna


CROSSFIREARABIA – In his younger years (in the late 70s and early 80s of last century), Trump, the rising and flamboyant businessman, when asked by reporters about his presidential aspirations, repeatedly said that he did not want to become a president!


Time has just proved that he was lying even at that early stage! But it was a lie that took a nap that lasted nearly four decades! The nap finally came to an end in 2016. Trump was the first person who could not
believe, his own eyes and ears, that he won the race to become the 45th President of the US!


Prior to that surprising outcome, the vast majority of polls, indications and analyses were in favor of his rival, the veteran Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.


Another interesting coincidence in Trump’s path to the White House, then and now was the fact that his two rivals in the two races were women! This last race in November, however, was unexpectedly different in that he won by a large and significant margin, one which the Americans label as a “landslide victory”!


Even during the shorter nap or forced absentia from real politics, when “sleepy” Joe Biden occupied the White House for four years, Trump was not never absent from the public eye and the thirsty and nagging American media. He frequently appeared in the media sitting in courtrooms, in different locations (States), frustrated yet polite, listening to more than 30 allegations, leveled against him by Attorney Generals, of breaking the rules of the land.


The question number one in the US and around the world today is this: Will Trump repeat himself, or should we expect a recycled Trump? Either way, someone around him will, definitely, remind him that the world has significantly changed since his interrupted presidency back in 2020!

This someone would also remind Trump that he was not the only one who must have learned his lesson. Others did that too, especially his country’s big so-called “adversaries” or rivals around the world, the likes of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and others!


His country’s allies and friends, the likes of the European Union, the Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and Israel must have also done their homework, and were readying themselves for this expected day as Trump has re-merged from his forced absentia.


Whatever the case might be, Trump’s second term will be even more newsworthy and consequential! The issues at stake are huge and complicated, such as the illegal immigrants from South America, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the commercial war with China, NATO relations, the Ukraine-Russian war, the war in the Middle East and other problems.


If Trump and his new hand-picked team think they can handle all these issues in the span of four years, they must be either over optimistic or naïve. Remember when Trump back in the 2016 presidential race against Clinton, kept saying he will build a wall along the borders with Mexico to stop the flaw of immigrants and workers to the US and vowed that Mexico will pay the cost?


Has the new Trump’s team prepared an answer to that question? If I were part of that team, I would take a look at the US-Mexico borders and statistics today first. Trump may have the luxury of changing faces and hats of his team. But he cannot escape from his own instincts and mentality as a bossy powerful and cunning businessman as he faces a new dynamic world order, in which his country happens to be just the number one player!


The issues at stake today are much intimidating and bigger than Trump’s credentials, ambitions and instincts! Yes, he can tackle some pending socioeconomic problems at home, apply “anesthesia” techniques to address other international problems like the situation in the Middle East or the relations
with China or Iran or Russia, but he cannot ever put an end to any of the above, once for all in just four years!

This opinion was especially written for Crossfire Arabia by Saleem Ayoub Quna who is a Jordanian author writing on local, regional and international affairs and has two books published. He has a BA in English Literature from Jordan University, a diploma from Paris and an MA from Johns Hopkins University in Washington. He also has working knowledge of French and German.

Continue reading
Trump’s Paradigm Shifts 

Dr Khairi Janbek

Islolationism in American terms meant historically, the interests of the USA are best served by not getting entangled in wars across the Atlantic, nor in the political affairs of Europe and possibly beyond, while keeping the economic expansion going.

Now to what extent will the incoming administration of Donald Trump proceed with isolationism and to what extent it believes will serve US interests?; in the mean time let us not forget that people electioneering or euphoric, are not the same people in the Oval Office. 

But still the first signs of isolationism are emerging in the field of US trade policy, with intended high customs and duties on imported goods from abroad.

This goes as well for the foreign policy of Trump which signals his distaste to negotiating with blocks and preferring bilateral agreements. This puts him in good standing with likeminded world leaders but certainly at odds with the EU, which by extension at odds with NATO also.

Ukraine

As for the current hot spots, Trump is accustomed to paradigm shifts, for a start he thinks that supporting Ukraine is a money losing project, and good business requires an atmosphere for peace. Therefore, most likely Trump will adopt a position of neutrality in this war, neither doing anything to harm Ukraine effectively, nor help it financially or militarily, while at the same time, trying to open diplomatic and trade dialogue with Russia. 

He may take the initiative to urge negotiations between the two parties on the basis of a business deal, in other words concessions.  No Meg’s Russia and not totally sovereign Ukraine, in any case, in Trump’s eyes, it is a European war after all.

Mideast

Now when it comes to the Middle East, this can be more tricky.  Trump has good relations with the Gulf Arab leaders, leaders of Egypt and Jordan, but also he is committed to the security of Israel and has good relations with Netanyahu. 

In a sense he has to square the circle if he wants to keep his relationships unscathed to deal with two most sour issues: The two state solution to the Palestinian problem, and the future of Iran, while taking into consideration, that both his allies, Egypt and Jordan are jittery about the issue of population transfer.

Trump’s option would be offering Netanyahu a free hand in Iran with US support, in exchange for a semblance of Palestinian self-rule, thus paving the way for deligitimising Hamas while legitimizing and presenting the continuation of war as a war between Israel and Iran, with Iran’s proxies being a legitimate target. 

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com. 

Continue reading