Navigating a World Without America
One of the most profound lessons we can learn in life is that we are not accountable for the actions of others, but rather for our responses to their behavior. This guidance is especially pertinent in today’s geopolitical landscape, where the President of the United States has brought disrepute to the Oval Office through his treatment of Volodymyr Zelensky.
In their recent visits to Washington, Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron made valiant efforts to facilitate a productive dialogue between the Ukrainian and American leaders. It was essential to strive for this engagement. However, the outcome was marked by disappointment and a display of performative ugliness.
This situation poses a critical question not only for us Atlanticists but for the entire global community: how do we navigate a world where America’s leadership is uncertain?
Such a notion may seem alarming, but it reflects our current reality. While the NATO treaty remains intact, we cannot confidently assume that President Trump, or any future leader with similar inclinations, would honor it if we were to activate Article 5 and call upon our American allies for defense.
There is a possibility that the United States will one day reassess its commitments and return to its role as a global leader. However, this appears to be a matter of partisan debate within the country, making the direction of the world’s most powerful nation unpredictable every four years. We have seen in Britain that a change of heart is feasible; the Labour Party once leaned towards isolationism but has now renewed its commitment to defense and international alliances. This change is achievable. Yet, we cannot guarantee that a similar shift will occur in America, nor can we predict when it might happen.
Thus, we must operate under the assumption that this precarious state of affairs will persist for the foreseeable future. While we should lament it—and even express our frustration—we must avoid the temptation to deny the reality of our situation.
The diplomatic approach demonstrated by the British government in recent days offers a promising start in adapting to this new world order. A visit to Washington may lead to being chastised for the sake of “great television,” whereas a trip to London promises a warm welcome, thoughtful deliberation, and a photo opportunity with the King.
Sir Keir Starmer recognized last week that hard power has taken precedence over soft power by reallocating funds from international development to bolster the Armed Forces. However, he did not imply that soft power is without value.
To foster the trust and relationships necessary for constructing new defensive military alliances, effective diplomacy—including the strategic use of the monarchy—is invaluable.
It seems inevitable that a debate will emerge regarding how the free world should respond to the more perilous global landscape we face. This dialogue is already unfolding and will encompass three primary areas:
- How to engage with Trump and his administration: Should they be snubbed, courted, or urged to return to the fold?
- Should the European Union establish its own army?
- What lies ahead for NATO if we can no longer rely on the United States?
We can begin to discern the United Kingdom’s position in these discussions, even at this early juncture. The Prime Minister’s unwavering support for Ukraine is evident, yet he has opted not to publicly denounce Trump, perhaps with the intention of maintaining a dialogue with both Americans and Ukrainians in the hope of reconciling their differences.
This strategy may ultimately prove ineffective, but positioning the UK as a diplomatic bridge to the US is a shrewd utilization of our unique status. Even if it does not yield immediate results, it could contribute to the long-term goal of revitalizing the Atlantic alliance.
The approach may invite criticism from both Trump detractors and supporters, including the new British ambassador to Washington, Lord Mandelson. His recent comments, which suggested that Zelensky should offer “unequivocal backing” to Trump’s proposals and be the first to advocate for a ceasefire, were quickly countered by Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard, who clarified that such views did not reflect government policy.
The intertwined issues of establishing an EU army and the future of NATO are complex and fraught with challenges. The idea of an EU army resurfaces repeatedly, yet it is plagued by concerns about unnecessary duplication and the fundamental reality that nations tend to wield more tangible influence than supranational organizations. As one EU diplomat aptly noted, “No leader wants to send troops to die under an EU flag.”
Moreover, an EU army would not provide a framework for the participation of allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea, which is essential for a comprehensive defense strategy.
However, to ensure NATO’s effective survival, it will require significant reformulation—an endeavor that necessitates time and financial investment. The combined military capabilities of American equipment, command structures, and interoperability with European forces form the backbone of the NATO military framework. Recent commissioning from UK defense suppliers, funded by seizing Russian state assets, marks a positive step forward, but a substantial expansion of British and European defense manufacturing capabilities will be essential.
Starmer’s phrasing of “a coalition of the willing” is particularly significant. It echoes George W. Bush’s strategy of forming a coalition when France opposed NATO’s support for the US in Iraq. Today, the tables have turned: it is the United States that appears unwilling, and their allies must devise new means of collaboration to achieve shared objectives. This moment calls for a return to traditional alliances among nation-states—those time-honored institutions often dismissed as relics of the past—as the critical vehicles for decision-making and action.
Britain has demonstrated its ability to convene, motivate, and foster cooperation among allies, and this should merely be the beginning of our renewed diplomatic efforts.
Mark Wallace is the Chief Executive of Total Politics Group.
