Trump's Impact on NATO and European Leaders

Speaker 2
Has Donald Trump ever had a rethink about anything in a moral sense, in a political sense? Will Tucker Carlson become a transformed man after watching what happened following his pathetic interview? I don't think so. I seriously doubt that. And it's left to Joe Biden to make the moral and political distinction between the two in the election, which he has already done by making the statement that he gave the other day, that this was in fact a murder, and we'll see what the United States does going forward. But this is a huge, huge event.
Speaker 1
David Raminik, thank you for putting it in context for us. That was very helpful. Next on GPS, last weekend, Trump threatened NATO members who do not spend enough on defense. How are Europe's leaders responding? I'll speak to the former Prime Minister of Sweden, a country that just joined NATO, Carl Bilt. There's been much hand-wringing among European leaders about a potential Donald Trump win in November's U.S. elections. Last weekend, Donald Trump said he would encourage Russia to do, quote, whatever the hell they want, unquote, to any NATO member who doesn't pay their fair share in military spending. Joining me now is Carl Bilt, a former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden. Bilt now co-chairs the European Council on Foreign Relations. Welcome, Carl. Let me first just ask you, what was your reaction when you heard that? Give us a sense of, you know, what do you think? Well, you
Speaker 3
might have seen that most European leaders tried to keep a reasonable straight face, which wasn't entirely easy for some of them. You installed them by the Secretary of the head of NATO, it was rather familiar what he said. But it was behind that. Everyone is deeply worried. We only sort of early, and the election is in November, and he might say the one strange thing after that, in itself, has a decent deal. And then, of course, the entire question, if he's elected, what on earth might happen?
Speaker 1
You know, what I wonder about Carl is, is the damage already done in the sense that after all NATO, the nature of the NATO's deterrence is a psychological one. You're trying to deter Putin principally from daring to cross borders because he is worried about the certainty that NATO will respond. And that certainty is cast into doubt, even if at the end of the day Donald Trump were to respond, some of the psychological deterrence is already lost.
Speaker 3
Some of that is already lost, you're entirely correct. And then, of course, I mean, the credibility of NATO rests on the credibility of the man or the woman who sits in the Oval Office, and what kind of decisions might come out of the Oval Office in a critical situation. And when there is beginning to debate what might happen in different situations, that, of course, greats, as you point out, uncertainty and stability. And to this should be added, of course, the term more that we see in the House of Representatives, which is blocking aid to Ukraine, add the two together, and it is distinctly destabilizing.
Speaker 1
Is there a scenario in which this jolts to Europeans to do more to take, you know, there's 18 out of 31 above the 2% threshold of defense spending? Could it pressure more of them to do it? Could it result in a more unified foreign and defense policy? I mean, is there any good that could come from this?
Speaker 3
Well, I think, as you noted, most European countries, virtual, all of them are busy increasing defense spending quite a lot. I mean, that has to do with Ukraine. And all of them that are in more exposed positions in the east of Europe facing Russia the one way or the other, they are above 2% or even well above 2%. And they are on a path to even more. So that limits to what can be done in short term. What might happen is, of course, and that has to do more with the aid to Ukraine, that there will be a recognition of the need for the Europeans to do even more. Most of the aid to Ukraine is already European. But if the US disappears from the sea in the one way or the other, Europe will have to do more. It feels
Speaker 1
like in order to do more, I mean, as you say, Europe is already paying more to Ukraine than the United States, but the US has a military industrial complex, the kind Europe doesn't. Is it possible that Europe will have to build something like that, which some of which it had during the Cold War, kind of returned to a European military industrial complex that can churn out weapons of all kinds to deal with this new security environment?
Speaker 3
I think that will happen. But the problem with that is, of course, it takes time. It takes time to build facilities, to work force, to get all the raw materials necessary. We see that with attempts to ramp up production of artillery ammunition. But there is no question. There is a significant effort on the way to expand the defence industrial base of Europe, but it takes years, unfortunately.
Speaker 1
Looking at it from the point of view of Sweden, Karl, who you're prime minister and foreign minister, Sweden has taken a big gamble in joining NATO, which is that it has adopted a much more confrontational policy toward Russia than it has been. And then it has historically done so, I presume, on the expectation that it has the United States at its back. Is there concern in Sweden that maybe this was a more risky move than they realized, given that Trump might be elected?
Speaker 3
Not really, because their advantage with NATO members should be irrespective of that, even if you point out. I mean, the US is the backbone of NATO. So there is concern of what might happen. But of course, we will gain advantages anyhow by the integration that we get with our northern and northern European neighbours and with the Brits and with Dutch and the others. So there are pluses, even if you take out the US out of their equation. But it was you as is the, particularly when it comes to the critical component of nuclear deterrence, there is no way the US can be replaced.
Speaker 1
You and Sweden made that decision to join NATO because you see a fundamentally changed strategic environment, particularly with regard to Russia. What do you think about that Donald Trump doesn't understand? In other words, if I were to put you in a room with Donald Trump, what would you try to explain to him about what has happened in terms of the security situation in Europe, particularly on the East?
Speaker 3
Well, I would try to say to him that the security of the United States long term is dependent on what happens in the rest of the world. And if the security of Europe is fundamentally in danger by Russian aggression, be that in all the Europe, be that somewhere else, it's got a long term impact on the security of the United States. It's going to have an impact on China because the message will be clearly understood in Beijing that you can do whatever you want. And there might be other actors around the world that will receive the same message. And at the end of the day, the United States will live in a far more uncertain world. And that should be understood, even by someone who doesn't seem to care too much about the world.
Speaker 1
Karl Bilt, always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Thank you.

Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny dies in prison; Europe's reaction to Trump's incendiary remarks about NATO; Prospects for peace in the Israel-Hamas war; Giorgia Meloni's moment; Allies of Pakistan’s jailed ex-leader Imran Khan win big in Pakistan

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts