A little more than a week ago, we witnessed a significant shift in world politics and international relations when Trump and JD Vance humiliated Ukrainian President Zelenskyy during his visit to the White House. Although great powers such as the US throughout history have exploited smaller states, it is exceptional to see it being done this openly.
The event at the White House was the result of many other developments over the past weeks. In the UN General Assembly The United States voted together with Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and Israel, against a resolution condemning Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. Additionally, Trump has tried to pressure Zelenskyy to sign the agreement on exploiting Ukraine’s mineral resources so that the United States would not abandon the country militarily – without promising security guarantees. This was preceded by Trump’s statements that Zelenskyy is a dictator and that Ukraine had started an “unnecessary” war with Russia. The latest twist in Trump’s world-shattering politics was the announcement to suspend military aid “until Ukraine commits to peace.”
Although the geopolitical interests of the United States and Russia are still not aligned, Trump has clearly shown his ideological alignment with Putin. Earlier, the Kremlin spokesperson stated that Russia is “completely in agreement” with the U.S. administration on Ukraine. This forms a significant threat because Trump and Putin’s collaboration involves the potential birth of a new ideological alliance between two authoritarian leaders of major powers.
Over the past few days, I’ve read some commentators pondering why Europe would not be satisfied with peace, and why we would want the war in Ukraine to continue.
So, I’ll reiterate once again: everyone wants peace in Ukraine. But how this peace is achieved and what kind of peace it is matters greatly.
If peace in Ukraine comes about through two superpowers’ authoritarian leaders deciding on its terms, without considering Ukraine’s needs or sovereignty, this will strengthen Putin and Trump, and their power to decide over others’ affairs. It will be a ”peace” that reinforces their worldview and their authoritarian ideology.
In their view, foreign policy relies even heavier than now on the superiority of large superpowers, the right to take whatever they want into their own hands, and on violence. Domestically, this ideology perceives democracy, human rights and diversity as a threat. The strengthening of this worldview does not make the world safer or more stable for anyone else – quite the opposite. Trump has stated that he wants to take control of both the Panama Canal and Greenland. Putin has already occupied Crimea and is currently occupying a fifth of Ukraine’s territory. These policies represent 21st-century imperialism and colonialism: they embody the mindset of these men that when you are big and powerful enough, you can do whatever you want.
Trump and the Far-Right Playbook
In Finland, the far right The Finns Party, currently serving in government as a part of the most right wing coalition Finland has ever seen, has tried to bypass Trump’s awkward positions by stating that although his positions on Ukraine are not good, his politics are otherwise good. Finland’s Minister for Development and Foreign Trade, Ville Tavio, for example, expressed how pleased he was that the U.S. is ending “wokeness.” He also mentioned how Trump’s policies are “exemplary in many ways.” Finland’s Deputy Prime Minister, Riikka Purra, also highly praised JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference.
However, these domestic political statements are not separate from Trump and Putin’s positions on Ukraine. They are expressions of the same worldview and the same ideology. JD Vance said in Munich that he is not most concerned about Russia, China, or any other external threats in relation to Europe – he is most concerned about the “threat from within.”
This rhetoric is part of the exact same playbook that the extreme right has been using in both the U.S. and Europe for years. It is the language of Putin and also, for example, the extreme right parties like the AfD in Germany, the RN in France or Vox in Spain. These forces have long argued that Europe is decaying and weak because of its values related to diversity and democracy – not because nothing has been done about inequality or common industrial policies. Democracy, social diversity, the rule of law and equality, or as Musk has said – empathy, these values are presented as internal threats and values that are the reason for the weakening of Europe. In foreign policy, this same thinking appears in treating these values as entirely worthless or irrelevant.
Trump’s administration immediately banned certain words in the U.S. and began “purging” the administration illegally and shutting down all diversity-promoting activities within the government. These are actions which reflect exactly the same authoritarian and conservative worldview Putin has long represented – one where the rights of gender and sexual minorities, the rule of law, and “European values” symbolize weakness and moral decay.
Many left-wing commentators warned about Trump’s ideology long before his re-election. These warnings were based, among other things, on Trump’s hostility toward human rights and statements about withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. For a long time, Finland’s official foreign policy commentators maintained that Trump’s election would not bring any significant changes to transatlantic relations. I believe this was a similar misjudgment that was made with Putin. For too long, the right wing thought that his authoritarianism and ideology would only be a problem for minorities living in Russia, and that this would not have foreign policy consequences. In the case of Russia, this was a misanalysis, and the same mistake is now being repeated with Trump, potentially with even further-reaching consequences.
This is yet another example of how the traditional right wing has enabled the emergence of these authoritarian leaders and extreme right forces. Their economic policies have created the frustration and anger that the extreme right channels, and in addition to this, their position of either understanding or adopting the policies of the extreme right has enabled their rise to power and mainstreaming.
What Does This Political Situation and the Alliance of Authoritarian Forces Mean for Europe?
It is crucial to understand the risks that the strengthening of the worldview Putin and Trump represent brings to the world, to peace and to the multilateral, rules-based cooperation.
The world urgently needs voices that act as alternatives to the ideology of these men. The concept of strategic autonomy is now even more important for Europe, and a concept that is very useful for the left. The key objectives should be the readiness for Europe to stand on its own feet, to reduce dependencies on the U.S., and seek to promote a just peace in Ukraine, taking into account the challenges that the current circumstances present for this objective.
Seven Political Conclusions for Europe
Here are the key political conclusions that I believe are necessary for the EU and the Members States:
- “Buy European” defense industry strategy
Trump’s administration has clearly outlined that Europe should take more responsibility for its own security and rely less on U.S. support. Let’s do that and start by directing all funds currently going to the U.S. arms industry into the European industry. The Draghi report highlighted that 63% of EU defense procurements from 2022-2023 went to the U.S. Let’s adopt the “Buy European” principle and direct these funds entirely to European industry and enhance European capabilities as quickly as possible. - European NATO – or a new alternative
The new U.S. foreign policy means that Europe’s blind trust in its support within NATO is exposed as naive. Therefore, now is the time to develop European structures for defense cooperation. This work can take place within the EU, JEF, NATO, or any other similar cooperation framework, but the key strategic goal is to build European security solutions based on Europe, not the US. - Increasing support for Ukraine – if necessary, with joint debt and including Ukraine’s sovereign debt write-off
If and when Trump reduces U.S. financial and military support for Ukraine, Europe must be ready to increase its support accordingly. This includes support for weapons, humanitarian aid, development cooperation, and the country’s vast reconstruction. Finland should not categorically reject joint debt if it is necessary for securing support for Ukraine. Europe must also take a negative stance toward U.S. attempts to exploit Ukraine’s mineral resources. In addition to this, the cancellation of Ukraine’s sovereign debt needs to be on the agenda. - Securing a possible ceasefire and a European peace plan
One of the biggest mistakes of the EU leaders is that Europe should have taken the initiative and created its own peace plan with Ukraine even before Trump’s rise to power. It is true that Europe has lacked a clear strategy on how to ensure a just peace in Ukraine, but now this must be created together. One key issue in which Europe should play a role is ensuring the security of a possible ceasefire or peace agreement. - Promoting Ukraine’s EU membership with urgency
One crucial question regarding Ukraine’s future and the prevention of new wars is what political community or security architecture Ukraine will join. The U.S. has publicly ruled out NATO membership, and it also seems unrealistic given that some areas of Ukraine will likely remain under Russian occupation. For these reasons, I see EU membership as the most viable option. - EU must change its policy to strengthen international law institutions
One of the most dangerous developments in international politics is the erosion of international law and the institutions that uphold it. One key contributor to this is the EU itself, which especially through its Gaza policies has contributed significantly to a world where the rules can be disregarded when convenient. If the EU wants to take on the role of defending human rights and international law, it must begin by changing its own policies. - Strategic autonomy and security are more than just defense
As expected, the discussions on Europe’s role have heavily focused on defense. However, strategic autonomy is much more than defense. Security is more than just military defense. It is extremely concerning and condemnable that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte suggests that EU member states should finance additional defense investments by cutting health or social security services. Such policies must be categorically rejected as it would cement the rise of the extreme right in Europe and thus create new dangerous security problems.
Europe must understand both the key importance of the social dimension for internal security and the broader significance of strategic autonomy. A crucial part of reducing dependencies relates, for example, to limiting the power of digital economy oligarchs. In addition to investing heavily in developing Europe’s own digital economy capabilities and public digital service infrastructure, the EU must also maintain and tighten the taxation and regulation of large social media companies. Elon Musk does not oppose digital platform regulation due to concerns about free speech but because it concerns his property and his power. He does not want any restrictions on it. Energy is another essential sector. The EU should continue the green transition and strongly promote reducing external energy dependencies.
We are in a new and dangerous situation in global politics, but we must not be confused. With the dangerous cooperation between Trump and Putin and the rise of the extreme right, there is also room for an alternative. The world needs alternative voices more than ever, and the left must be at the frontline in creating these alternatives.
Li Andersson is a Member of the European Parliament from Left Alliance Finland.
Photo: AP Photo/ Mystyslav Chernov
