Two Views of Europe: Transatlantic Security Looms Large in the Trump-Harris Debate

America’s allies watch US presidential campaigns to gauge how US politics will affect them, and typically they are disappointed when foreign policy is given short shrift. But alliances and Russia’s war in Ukraine were major areas of focus at the September 10 debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, and they will remain core policy issues in this election. For allies wondering whether European security matters in this US election, the debate’s answer is a resounding “yes”. But the candidates have different views of Europe’s role. 

The Lasting Importance of European Security 

The foreign policy focus of the debate could have been on China, as the debate took place during the House GOP’s China week. And China is America’s official top priority: the US National Security  Strategy identifies China as “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge”. But in the debate, China featured only briefly and was viewed largely from an economic perspective. 

Instead, transatlantic ties and Russia’s war in Ukraine overshadowed other regions and conflicts—including Israel-Palestine. Trump consistently chose to focus on his experience in Europe, defending himself by citing Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. When the moderators asked Trump to discuss Afghanistan, Trump touted his success in increasing NATO defense spending. When asked about negotiating with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas, Trump pivoted to discussing his relationship with Russia’s President Putin. 

Harris, too, gave significant attention to Europe, calling NATO “the greatest military alliance the world has ever known” and expressing concern about Poland’s future security. She argued that it is because of US weapons that “Ukraine stands as an independent and free country.” 

European security and Russia’s war in Ukraine matter to the candidates for different reasons. Trump appears to use Europe to present himself as a strong man. Europe is an arena in which to show off his deal-making skills and forcefulness. This is why Trump’s promise to negotiate the end of the war in Ukraine as president-elect is such a highlight of his campaign. In the debate, he showcased his strong-arm tactics toward NATO. While incorrectly stating that Europe is paying less in Ukraine aid than the United States (in fact it is the opposite), Trump demanded that Europe “be forced to equalize”. This foreign policy approach relies on force and fear; note that he praised Orbán for saying that “the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump”. The former president’s fractious relationship with Europe in his first term may be an indication of how he would conduct a second.

For Trump, Europe and Ukraine stand apart from the United States. When Trump said that “it is in the US best interest to get this war finished and just get it done” rather than agree that it is in the United States’ “best interest for Ukraine to win the war”, he clearly distances the United States from Ukraine. That idea is reinforced by the Trump team, who do not appear to see Ukraine in the club of the United States’ closest allies: NATO. In a recent interview, Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance explained that the Trump peace plan “probably looks like” Russia getting a “guarantee of neutrality from Ukraine, it doesn’t join NATO” or “allied institutions”.  

Harris argued that Trump’s peace plan amounted to giving up. For Harris, a focus on Europe is a proxy for American leadership through coalition-building and opens the door to conversations about values and US identity. Giving up Ukraine, she says, “is not who we are as Americans”. 

Europe and the Path Ahead

The candidates’ attention to Europe provides an opportunity to make progress on issues that are keeping Europeans up at night. Three action items should be at the top of the agenda.

• Debunk aid misperceptions: European questions will feature prominently in the campaigns in the weeks ahead, and European allies must correct misconceptions about their commitments to the transatlantic alliance and Ukraine. What the numbers actually show is that Europe has already provided 46% more aid to Ukraine than has the United States. Combined with the aid pledged, Europe will have provided 90% more aid. Increasing outreach to GOP leaders, especially on the Hill and in US media outlets, to explain Europe’s aid policies and current defense spending will prepare them to have a fact-based discourse with a possible future Trump-Vance administration. 
   
• Give Ukrainians the leading voice in deciding their country’s political future: Ukraine has a story it needs to tell the United States, and especially the Republican Party: the story of why it is fighting. The initial outline of the Trump peace deal prioritizes land rather than Ukraine’s freedom to choose its political future. But Ukrainians are fighting to no longer be left out: more than three-quarters of Ukrainians want their country to join NATO. Ukrainians should explain to Americans why political alliances matter for long-term peace.
   
• Co-create the next era of the transatlantic partnership: Trump may be telegraphing the outline of his relationship with Europeans, and it bears significant similarities to his stance in his first term. However, possible policy differences between Biden and Harris are harder to judge. Harris emphasized the continuity of support and US leadership in helping Ukraine, but she did not answer the question about how her approach to dealing with Putin would differ from President Biden’s. With a Harris-Walz administration, given Harris’ deep appreciation of alliances, Europe may have the opportunity to innovate and co-create a new round of transatlantic policies to improve European security.