Reader TTS

If Donald Trump returns to the White House after Tuesday’s elections, one might anticipate a profound shake-up of the transatlantic alliance and a pivotal test for Western security. Trump

has repeatedly boasted that he could end the war in Ukraine “in one day, 24 hours”, yet has been remarkably vague on how he’d accomplish this. Given his track record, his strategy would

likely rest on bullying tactics – pushing the EU, the UK, Canada and other key allies to cut their support for Ukraine, with the implied or explicit threat that America might abandon NATO

altogether if they refuse. But Trump may well be misreading the resolve of his allies. The West’s support for Ukraine has been unwavering, and the scale of aid delivered since Russia’s

invasion speaks volumes. The United States alone has committed more than $75 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian support, while the EU has contributed roughly $93 billion. The

UK has pledged upwards of £10 billion and has made long-term commitments extending well into the next decade, while Canada has provided over $5 billion. These figures represent a significant

investment – not only in Ukraine’s future but in the very stability of Europe itself. Europeans recognise that Ukraine’s resistance is more than symbolic; it is a bulwark against Russian

expansionism and a test of Europe’s own security commitments. Ukraine’s resilience has already defied the expectations of many. When Russia’s tanks rolled in back in 2022, conventional

wisdom held that Kyiv would fall within weeks. Instead, as the conflict ground into a war of attrition, Ukraine held its ground, turning the tables on Russian forces. Over the summer,

Ukrainian strikes reached deep into Russian territory – a powerful reminder that the tides of war can turn unexpectedly. Meanwhile, Putin’s forces have been spread thin, to the point of

seeking help from its allies, including North Korea. The contrast could not be sharper: Europe has stood by Ukraine in the face of what many feared would be insurmountable odds, while Russia

shows signs of desperation. The gamble, should Trump return, is that his threats to withdraw from NATO could force Europe into a difficult choice. If Trump genuinely pushes this

brinkmanship, the EU, the UK, Canada, and others may simply let the US exit NATO, while leaving the door open for a future administration’s return. This scenario – an unthinkable rupture in

the alliance – would force Europe to take on the responsibility of shoring up NATO without American support, a daunting task but not an impossible one. In recent years, Europe has taken

strides towards greater self-reliance in defence; the necessity of maintaining a credible deterrent without the US might just be the final push. For the UK, however, Trump’s potential shift

to a pro-Putin strategy would be a devastating blow to the vision of a “Global Britain” that emerged post-Brexit. Since leaving the EU, Brexit advocates had imagined the UK as a thriving,

global player, independent of European constraints, leveraging a revitalised “special relationship” with the US while rekindling Commonwealth ties and forging new trade deals. But under a

Trump administration sympathetic to Putin, these ambitions would quickly dissolve. Trade deals with the US would be unlikely to materialise, shattering hopes for a transatlantic economic

pivot, and the Commonwealth remains largely a nostalgic dream without serious economic benefits. Forced into isolation, Britain would face the necessity – rather than the choice – of

re-centring its foreign policy on Europe. With dwindling options and a hostile ally across the Atlantic, the UK would find itself needing stronger European ties for both security and

economic stability, drawing closer to the Continent not by grand design but by necessity. What would NATO look like without the US? The short answer is: leaner, more European, and possibly

more unified in its regional focus. The US currently provides much of NATO’s advanced surveillance, logistical support, and nuclear deterrence capabilities. Without it, Europe would need to

ramp up defence spending considerably, likely increasing budgets to 3-4% of GDP in the key nations: Germany, France and the UK. European countries would be forced to develop advanced

military production, from fighter jets to artillery and missile systems, creating a more robust European defence industry. The UK and France would also need to step up as NATO’s remaining

nuclear powers, with significant investment required to modernise and potentially expand their nuclear deterrent. The EU, too, would need to play a far more central role, coordinating

defence policy, intelligence, and resources to maintain NATO’s integrity. It would be a heavy burden, but one that Europe’s major players – especially Germany, France, and the UK – might be

willing to shoulder to maintain European security. However, for Trump, the question might go beyond NATO. If he truly sees Putin as a friend and views NATO as an expendable relic, could he

even contemplate shifting US support to Russia? Such a move would be shocking, almost unthinkable, but Trump’s past comments hint at a worldview where the US could, in theory, “pivot”

towards Moscow. He has previously called Putin “savvy” and “a genius” for his actions in Ukraine, and he has shown more disdain for NATO than any modern US president. But even if Trump were

bold enough to attempt it, the obstacles he would face are enormous. US intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and the State Department all view Russia as a primary threat and would resist any

pivot towards Moscow. Congress, too, has shown bipartisan support for Ukraine and would likely block any attempt to redirect American support. Domestically, Trump would face fierce

opposition from the American public. The majority of Americans support Ukraine, viewing Russian aggression as a direct affront to democratic values. A pivot towards Russia would spark

outrage from both sides of the political spectrum, likely alienating many within Trump’s own base. Internationally, such a move would be catastrophic. The US would lose its position as a

leader of the democratic world. Trump might see this as a bold, anti-establishment move, but the consequences for the US would be severe – economically, diplomatically, and strategically. In

the end, Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO may simply accelerate the EU’s push towards a self-sufficient defence structure. Europe has, in recent years, recognised the need for greater

autonomy in security matters. If forced to do so, the EU, UK, and Canada might choose to continue supporting Ukraine and holding the line against Russia independently. A NATO without the US

would be different, but it could still stand as a credible deterrent, strengthened by a renewed commitment to European defence. For Trump to openly support Russia would be an even bolder

gamble, one with almost no precedent in US history. But even if he entertains the idea, he would likely find himself hemmed in by powerful domestic and international constraints. The

institutional and political barriers are high, and the cost in terms of American influence and credibility would be steep. The more likely scenario is that Trump’s rhetoric will push

boundaries, but the structure of US foreign policy and the resolve of NATO allies will hold firm. In the end, what we can be sure of is that Trump could never end the war in 24 hours. His

return would weaken US influence in Europe, but the West’s commitment to Ukraine and the principles of NATO will survive all that Trump can chuck at it. Europe, with its demonstrated resolve

and a willingness to increase defence investments, may prove resilient enough to stand on its own, but in all likelihood, it is never going to come to that anyway. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE

_We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue

publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._