Taking the Pulse: Is it worth it for Europeans to placate Trump?

A year and change into President Trump’s second term, it has become abundantly clear that appeasement only leads to short-term wins. Flattery did not prevent threats to the sovereignty of NATO allies, nor did it prevent trade tariffs being imposed, nor did it mean deals made under the alliance’s Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List initiative were honored. On the rare occasion where European heads of government drew a line, as with the Greenland crisis, it paid off—but only temporarily.

Europe has to prioritize building up its own capabilities to be able to act autonomously without U.S. dependencies. But until then, those dependencies mean Europe - including Ukraine - will have to wheel and deal with Trump. As much as Europeans may - however quietly or loudly - lament it, acquiescing is sometimes needed to obtain those short-term wins, for example to secure particular weapon systems for Kyiv.

In those cases, European governments need to have a much stronger cost-benefit assessment. Essentially, the question becomes: What is the minimum cost required to achieve an outcome that is good enough? And they need to be clear-eyed that the outcome will only be sustained until the next Trump-induced crisis comes along. In this world, Europeans have to minimize their costs for maximum gain - even if just temporarily.

Read the article in full here.