ROBERT KAGAN: – There are governments in Europe that Trump sees as friendly. For him, the anti-liberal course of Warsaw is simply attractive. Supporters of the Polish government will most likely brag about it, and opponents will talk about useful idiots.
More broadly, Trump's quest to support anti-liberal forces in Europe should be seen. This applies to all those politicians who effort to find people like their own voters abroad. erstwhile Reagan looked at Europe, he saw Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, they were his partners. Bill Clinton was looking for Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder. Trump was chosen by the populist, nationalist movement, so in the UK, he does not like either tories or laurels, only Nigel Farage. In France Le Pen, in Italy Salvini, in Hungary Orban, and in Poland Kaczyński and Duda.
Does this relationship of Trump increase Polish security?
We do not yet know precisely what Trump's plans are for NATO. There are countries in Europe that the president of the United States likes and Poland includes them, and in the current situation it is good to be liked by Trump. Obama withdrew from the deployment of the missiles promised by the Bush administration and did not care especially about strengthening the Polish defence. And since Trump wants to do things the other of Obama...
The problem of Poland is that if Trump's long-term goal is to bring the United States out of NATO or any another form of weakening the Pact, it will be hard to number on military aid from the US. It will not be that Americans will stand up for Poland, but will abandon Germany or Lithuania. Poland lies between Germany and Russia – the American safety warrant solved both of these historical problems. The withdrawal of the States will make your position in the region worse.
Seven years ago in Poland Obama confirmed the importance of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Pact.
Obama had as small enthusiasm for NATO as Trump. But he was a liberal, so he did not abandon the thought of America supporting the liberal global order. But he did not want the United States to engage so far outside their territory. Of course, after what the Russians did in Ukraine at the end of his presidency, the return of American forces to Europe began, and Trump is now taking praise for it. According to Obama, the U.S. was besides active in Europe, which should be doing its own business due to the fact that she can afford it. The difference is that Trump is moving distant from NATO.
So is Fort Trump in Poland even possible?
I uncertainty it. Sending troops to a fresh area costs money, and the Department of defence now has more crucial things to do. China's problem will make more cost in the budget than Russia. Besides, what would be the meaning of specified a base? The key question is: what will the US's commitment to NATO look like? If it is smaller, the base or 2 U.S. brigades in Poland will make no difference. The question is whether the U.S. is ready to support you under attack by Russia. The Baltic countries are more susceptible than Poland. If the US does not defend NATO, they will not defend Poland.
But the presence of 2 brigades would mean that the U.S. would hazard the lives of their soldiers in the event of, for example, green men appearing in Poland.
The Americans are militaryly withdrawing from Germany. And it is hard for me to imagine that we stand up for Poland, but not Germany. American abroad policy will not look like we are choosing who we like in Europe and defending him. The future of the Pact and the function of its most crucial associate in Europe, or Germany, are crucial. Therefore, I do not think that anyone in Poland should look for comfort in that you have good relations with America if this 1 withdraws from NATO.
Let me ask you specifically: in case of an attack on 1 of the NATO countries, will America come to his aid in accordance with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty?
During the Cold War, the russian Union's conflict with Western Europe automatically active conflict with the US. Today, similarly, engagement and readiness to act in defence of European allies, including Poland, are important, not the presence of land troops. However, erstwhile it comes to the political side, I am not so certain that Trump, in the case of re-election, will stay faithful to the content of Article 5.
In the last book "The Jungle Grows Back", you call on the European Union to discipline associate States that are violating its rules. From your point of view, are Hungarians under Orban and Poles under Kaczyński in the same drawer?
I think that Poland, although not in this place as Hungary, is moving in that direction. An attack on the independency of the judiciary, on the independency of the media – all these are worrying symptoms, especially if they are besides seen in another European countries. And I think authoritarian, anti-liberal ideology is more dangerous even than communism, which yet lost to liberalism.
People want to be close to their family, their tribe. Nationalism is profoundly rooted in human nature. Therefore, democracy is more threatened present than during the Cold War. Thanks to the improvement of fresh technologies, the usage of social media of states is easier to become authoritative. An example is Hungary, which openly declares itself an anti-liberal state. If the Union and NATO fall apart, a liberal order will be destroyed. Therefore, those countries which are aiming at authoritarianism, and who are benefitting from their presence in the Union, should be deprived of these benefits.
But any say that if we start punishing Budapest or Warsaw now, we will only push them out of the Union towards Putin or China.
It's true. But the current policy does not prevent it. I can't imagine Warsaw moving into the Russian sphere of influence on its own. After the overthrow of communism, Poland wanted to become a democracy for economical and strategical reasons. But she did not have to, due to the fact that in the past she was besides an authoritarian state. Like another countries in the region. But they agreed to accept Western conditions to participate in his economical and defence order. And now the governments of Poland and Hungary say that they inactive intend to reap the economical benefits of belonging to liberal order and defend themselves under the defence umbrella of the West, but that their ideology will be antiliberal. The West should say, you agreed to our terms, if you reject them now, good-bye.
George Soros late said that the Union resembles the falling russian Union and could end up similarly.
Europe is moving in this direction. In France, only 1 election separates nationalists from participation in power. I think Britain's going somewhere in the Arctic. The British were a powerful political force, and now for a decade, they'll be dealing with bullshit. Germany remains alone as the last ‘liberal power’. And if Germany remains alone in the square, surrounded by nationalist countries, the alleged "German question" in Europe will return.
But who will lead the Union if Germany doesn't?
Calling Germany to lead Europe is problematic. Germany does not have the legitimacy to lead as the US had for respective decades. Jealousy for German success is constantly present among European countries. If you remove things from the European image of the United States and large Britain, things can happen. As with Nord Stream – Germany can bind condominiums to Russia, due to the fact that past shows that they have always done so whenever they feel isolated. This is all more like the 19th century for me. The structures formed to halt the natural impulse of the planet towards chaos and confrontation are breaking down.
Are American elite members aware of this?
Not many.
Are the United States truly so safe that they can afford to retreat from Europe?
No, but it's a lot easier for Americans to fool themselves due to the fact that they don't have the consequences of what happens 3,000 miles away. Poles do not seem to have akin illusions about events in Europe. Even after the Germans took Paris in 1940, the Americans felt that it was not their problem. It's hard to convince them otherwise today.
***
Robert Kagan is an American historian and commentator of global affairs. In the 1980s, he worked in the state department, later co-founded the neoconservative think tank task for the fresh American Century. He himself describes himself as a liberal interventionist. His loudest book “Power and Paradise” was published in respective twelve languages.
