Trump's allergy to Europe's 'yes'

The President isn't wrong about the strategic picture but his approach is a case study in how to alienate potential partners.

CREDIT: Marian Kamensky/Cartoon Movement

When President Trump announced his "lengthy and highly productive" call with Vladimir Putin this week about negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine, he showcased his signature blend of deal-making bravado and diplomatic bull-in-a-china-shop approach. The problem? Making peace isn't quite like strong-arming contractors on a construction project for his latest hotel.

Consider the unintended consequences unfolding: While Trump promised to end the "ridiculous war" in before he even took office, his team's opening gambit has managed to unite Ukraine, Europe, and even some Republican hawks in opposition to his approach. When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested Ukraine's pre-2014 borders were "unrealistic" and NATO membership was off the table, Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker didn't mince words, calling it "the kind of thing Tucker Carlson could have written, and Carlson is a fool."

The irony is that Trump isn't entirely wrong about the broader strategic picture. The Democrats did help drag America into a proxy war with Russia that's increasingly difficult to sustain. And his push for greater European defense spending and strategic autonomy touches on real issues. But his solution mirrors his Afghanistan playbook – sideline the allies, pressure the weaker party, and rush to claim a deal, any deal, regardless of the consequences.

What's particularly striking is the casual disdain for European allies. Vice President Vance's performance at the Munich Security Conference this week wasn't just a lecture – it was a sermon from the mount, comparing EU leaders to Soviet commissars and warning them about "running in fear" of their own voters. European leaders may lack the backbone to tell Vance exactly where to stick his sermon, but their actions speak volumes: if America wants to go it alone, they'll find their own path forward.

The contradictions keep piling up. Vance tells The Wall Street Journal that "military options remain on the table" just as Hegseth declares U.S. troops in Ukraine "unlikely." Trump woos Putin with promises of a meeting while his envoys assure Zelenskyy he'll have a seat at the table. Meanwhile, European leaders learn about major peace initiatives through Trump's social media posts. It's "let's make a deal" foreign policy in all its bold and transactional glory, where consistency is less important than the appearance of winning.

Take Greenland and the Arctic: Denmark was ready deepen cooperation. European security? NATO allies were already increasing defense spending, and European concerns about Russian ambitions aligned perfectly with American interests. Instead of building on this natural convergence, Trump threatened to seize territory and launch tariffs – turning an open door into a slammed one.

This is where Vance's hectoring lecture in Munich becomes more than just diplomatic malpractice – it's a case study in how to alienate potential partners. European leaders are actually moving in directions Trump wants: boosting defense spending, reconsidering their economic ties with China, and seeking energy independence from Russia. Yet rather than nurture these trends with a mix of pressure and partnership, Vance chose to publicly lecture them about their domestic politics. It's as if the administration is allergic to taking yes for an answer.

When you're simultaneously picking fights with Canada, Mexico, China, and now Europe, suddenly those trading partners start looking at each other differently. If Trump wants to stack the odds in America's favor and let everyone else play catch-up, he shouldn't be surprised when they decide to leave his casino altogether.

Here's the thing about circling the wagons: it works. Europe, far from being cowed by Trump's pressure, is quietly working on plans to send its own troops to help enforce any future peace settlement. France and Britain are taking the lead, signaling that the days of reflexive deference to Washington may be ending. As French President Emmanuel Macron pointedly noted, "Then, it will be the Ukrainians alone who can drive the discussions for a solid and lasting peace."

The truth is that while Trump's instincts aren't wrong, his method of getting there is actively undermining his own goals. You can't bully your way to lasting cooperation, especially when your negotiating partners are already inclined to work with you. The U.S. may still be the world's great power, but when you turn natural allies into reluctant partners, that power becomes increasingly difficult to translate into actual influence.

For better or worse, Trump has the world's attention and a unique opportunity to help solve one of its most dangerous conflicts. But if he can't move beyond his real estate developer's playbook – where every negotiation is zero-sum and every partner is either dominant or submissive – that opportunity will slip through his fingers. And unlike a failed business venture, the cost will be measured in something far more precious than dollars.