In recent days, President Trump has publicly criticized and made demands of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy while declining to call longtime U.S. antagonist Russian President Vladimir Putin a dictator.
Vice President Vance told European leaders at the Munich Security Conference last week that the real threat is not coming from Russia but from within their own countries.
Foreign policy experts have told NPR that Trump’s alienation of U.S. allies in Europe is radical and that in the long run, the move won’t benefit the U.S.
But what the president and his administration are actually doing is recognizing that post-World War II alliances, including NATO, are outdated, said Victoria Coates, a deputy national security adviser in the first Trump administration.
“A war between Germany and France is not our number one national security problem,” Coates said. “[Trump] is looking at the world and saying, OK, there is a war in Europe, but this is the Ukraine-Russia war. It’s been going on for three years. There’s been no diplomacy to proceed to a conclusion of the war.”
In an interview with Morning Edition‘s Steve Inskeep, she said she wonders if it isn’t NATO allies falling short of expectations with the U.S. instead of the other way around.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.Â
Steve Inskeep: There has been this world order, particularly in Europe, ever since World War II. The U.S. leads its European allies when necessary against Russia. That was the form in the early years of the war in Ukraine. Do you believe President Trump has upended the world order or switched sides?
Victoria Coates: No, I don’t think so. What President Trump is doing is acknowledging that 80 years on the reason that some of the structures were put in place after World War II, which was actually largely to prevent another inter-Europe war, are no longer in place. A war between Germany and France is not our number one national security problem. He is looking at the world and saying, OK, there is a war in Europe, but this is the Ukraine-Russia war. It’s been going on for three years. There’s been no diplomacy to proceed to a conclusion of the war. We’ve had a lot of maximalist rhetoric. We’ve had a lot of sort of displays of support for Ukraine and declarations that Ukraine is a democracy and this is an existential threat to the West. But we’ve also had hundreds of thousands dead and a lot of destruction. He is trying to change that paradigm also.
Inskeep: You mentioned that a lot of the structures were put together to avoid an inter-European war. I think that’s correct. But NATO specifically was an alliance against the expansion of what was then the Soviet Union, what is now Russia, which does seem to literally be the problem right now. It’s not just a war between Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine.
Coates: Well, it is. We’ll be welcoming the prime minister, Prime Minister Keir Starmer to Washington this week. We’ve already had President Emmanuel Macron. We will have President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. So that hardly looks to me like a Washington that is rejecting Europe.
At the NATO summit last year here in Washington, the NATO countries collectively agreed on a series of war plans that we would execute in the event of an additional kinetic action by an enemy. And those war plans require NATO to be investing collectively at 3.5%, which is where the United States is. The UK announced this week with great fanfare they were going to try to get to 2.5%. That math just doesn’t add up. If three years into a war in Europe, you don’t have the major European economies getting to the level of defense expenditure they need to get to in order to sustain what NATO has agreed to, then I have to wonder if it’s not the United States that’s turning its back on NATO, it’s these other NATO members who aren’t investing.
Inskeep: I want to ask about the concessions that the United States has offered to Russia’s Vladimir Putin as the president tries to end this war. Michael McFaul, a critic of Trump and former U.S. ambassador there, notes that the U.S. has already publicly said that Ukraine has to give up territory to Russia, that Ukraine can’t join NATO, that the U.S. won’t send peacekeeping troops, that the U.S. will reduce the number of soldiers in Europe, and that Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, has to hold elections before there are peace negotiations and other concessions. And in McFaul’s view, the United States hasn’t demanded anything of Russia. Is that how you see it?
Coates: Not at all. I mean, I think what has been offered to Russia has largely been rhetorical. None of this has cost the president anything. I would add the United Nations General Assembly resolution to that list, because off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything more useless than one of those resolutions.
Inskeep: You think you think it doesn’t matter that this resolution with the wording that few people other than the United States agreed with passed. Go on.
Coates: Yeah, this has largely been rhetorical and what we’ve offered Ukraine, on the other hand, which will be signed at the White House on Friday, is a material economic deal that will invest the United States in Ukraine and Ukraine’s security. So I would see that as a much more serious offer than, you know, rhetoric.
Inskeep: Do you think that deal would commit the United States to defend Ukraine against Russia?
Coates: I think it gives the United States a vested interest in Ukraine, which is something we have not had before. So we will see what that results.
Editor’s note: Zelenskyy is expected to meet with Trump in Washington on Friday to sign an deal to provide critical raw materials used for items like electric vehicle batteries and cancer drugs. The deal could lead to some security guarantees for Ukraine from the U.S.
Transcript:
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
We’ve been working to make sense of President Trump’s foreign policy approach. In recent days, the president has attacked allies and seemingly embraced a longtime antagonist, publicly criticizing and making demands of Ukraine’s president while declining when asked to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin, beginning negotiations with Putin over ending the war in Ukraine. We’ve heard analysts say that Trump seems to have switched sides in Europe, and Vice President JD Vance actually told Europeans the real threat is not Russia but the threat from within their own countries. Victoria Coates is following all of this. She is at the Heritage Foundation and was deputy national security adviser in the first Trump administration. Welcome to the program.
VICTORIA COATES: Thank you, Steve. Good to be with you.
INSKEEP: So we’ll remind people, there has been this world order, particularly in Europe, ever since World War II – 80 years now almost exactly – the U.S. leads its European allies, when necessary, against Russia. That was the form in the early years of the war in Ukraine. Do you believe the president has upended the world order or switched sides?
COATES: No, I don’t think so, Steve. I think what the – what President Trump is doing is acknowledging that 80 years on, the reason that some of the structures were put in place after World War II – which was actually largely to prevent another inter-Europe war – that those circumstances are no longer in place. You know, a war between Germany and France is not our No. 1 national security problem. Neither is it Europe’s. And so I think he is looking at the world and saying, OK, there is a war in Europe, but, you know, this is the Ukraine-Russia war. It’s been going on for three years. There’s been no diplomacy to proceed to a conclusion of the war. We’ve had a lot of maximalist rhetoric. We’ve had a lot of sort of displays of support for Ukraine and declarations that Ukraine is a democracy, and this is an existential threat to the West. But we’ve also had hundreds of thousands dead and a lot of destruction. And as I said, no progress. So I think he’s trying to change that paragon. Also, I mean…
INSKEEP: If I can, if I can just ask, you mentioned that a lot of the structures were put together to avoid an inter-European war. I think that’s correct, but NATO, specifically, was an alliance against the expansion of what was then the Soviet Union, what is now Russia, which does seem to literally be the problem right now. It’s not just a war between Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine.
COATES: Well, it is. And it’s sort of interesting to me to look at, you know, something like the United Kingdom, and we’ll be welcoming the prime minister, Prime Minister Starmer, to Washington this week. We’ve already had President Macron. We will have President Zelenskyy. So that hardly looks to me like, you know, a Washington that is rejecting Europe. We’re going to have three heads of state this week alone…
INSKEEP: OK.
COATES: …Coming to visit. And the issue with NATO, of course, is last year at the NATO summit here in Washington, the NATO countries collectively agreed on a series of war plans that we would execute in the event, you know, of an additional kinetic action by an enemy. And those war plans, Steve, require NATO to be investing collectively, all of us, at 3.5%, which is where the United States are. That is, rather. And, you know, you had the U.K. announce this week, with great fanfare, they were going to try to get to 2.5. That math just doesn’t add up. And so if three years into a war in Europe, you don’t have the major European economies getting to the level of defense expenditure that they need to get to in order to, you know, sustain what NATO has agreed to, you know, then I have to wonder if it’s not the United States that’s turning its back on NATO. It’s these other NATO members who aren’t investing.
INSKEEP: I’ll just remind people when you say 2.5, 3.5, we’re talking about a percentage of GDP, and…
COATES: Yes.
INSKEEP: …Everyone would like it to be higher in theory, although some nations haven’t done it. Other nations in NATO, by the way, have. I just want to ask about the concessions that the United States has offered to Russia’s Vladimir Putin as the president tries to end this war. Michael McFaul, who’s a critic of Trump, a former U.S. ambassador there, notes that the U.S. has already publicly said that Ukraine has to give up territory to Russia, that Ukraine can’t join NATO, that the U.S. won’t send peacekeeping troops, that the U.S. will reduce the number of soldiers in Europe, and that even Vladimir Zelenskyy – the Ukrainian president – has to hold elections before there are peace negotiations and other concessions. And in McFaul’s view, the United States hasn’t demanded anything of Russia. Is that how you see it?
COATES: Not at all. I mean, I think what has been – if you want to call it – offered to Russia has largely been rhetorical. None of this has cost the president anything. I would add the United Nations General Assembly resolution to that list because I – off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything more useless than one of those resolutions.
INSKEEP: Oh, you think it doesn’t matter that the – that this resolution with the wording that few people other than the United States agreed with passed. OK, go on.
COATES: Yeah, this has largely been rhetorical. And what we’ve offered Ukraine, on the other hand, which will be signed at the White House on Friday, is a material economic deal that will invest the United States in Ukraine and in Ukraine’s security. So I would see that as a much more serious offer than, you know, rhetoric or ungers (ph).
INSKEEP: And in about 10 seconds, do you think that deal would commit the United States to defend Ukraine against Russia?
COATES: I think it gives the United States a vested interest in Ukraine, which is something we have not had before. So we will see what that results in.
INSKEEP: Victoria Coates is a former deputy national security adviser during President Trump’s first term and is now at the Heritage Foundation. Thanks so much.
COATES: Thank you, Steve.
(SOUNDBITE OF MY MORNING JACKET’S “DONDANTE”)
