The victory of Donald Trump is becoming the main scenario of the American elections every day. For this reason, the number of analyzes evaluating the consequences of such an outcome is increasing. For this, the decisions of Mr. Trump during the previous period of the presidency, as well as the statements made by him over time and especially recently, are used as raw materials.

Even if there are different interpretations of the intentions of his rule, there is one aspect on which a consensus has been reached: Donald Trump is an unpredictable person who quickly changes his decisions and hardly accepts the advice of others, writes Radu Krachun in his blog. .

The first major test for Mr. Trump will be the review of more than 91 legal cases that have been opened against him so far. As the polls show, they do not have the character of reducing his popularity, but, on the contrary, potentiate him as a victim of the “system” against which he promises to fight. Under these conditions, his election could suffer only to the extent that court decisions would limit his right to run for office.

In the scenario in which he does become president, there are several topics of major concern: his attitude to the war in Ukraine, his support for NATO, his protectionist economic policies, his benevolence towards some political leaders with a rather autocratic attitude.

His threats related to the lack of US commitments in NATO, which go as far as the hypothesis that Europe will be left alone in front of Russia, are already beginning to yield results. Europe is finally starting to do what it should have done a long time ago. After a long period of time during which it has benefited fully from economic coexistence with Russia and the “free lunch” offered by American military protection, the EU must review its economic alliances as well as its military capabilities. Unfortunately, only under the pressure of time. Russian aggression against Ukraine led to a forced economic and financial separation of Europe from Russia, a slow separation that is not 100% complete even today.

But the slowness of Europe’s reaction turned out to be even more obvious and difficult to explain when we look at the military support it provided, or rather, did not provide, to Ukraine in 2023. And in this case, Europe once again proved the complexes it has in relations with Russia and, which causes even more concern, its inability to develop reliable military power while it sat comfortably under the US military umbrella. At the beginning, there were political hesitations about the feasibility of large-scale military aid, especially since Ukraine seemed like a safe victim. Later, when political decisions were finally made, it became clear over time that the existing military stocks and the European defense industry were simply not capable of sustaining significant and sustained military aid.

And because a picture is worth a thousand words, the map below shows in shades of blue the military and humanitarian support received by Ukraine through October 2023 as a percentage of the donor country’s GDP. The more intense the blue, the higher the % of GDP was. And that is why we see that the countries of Southern and Western Europe (except Great Britain) did not stand out.

Unfortunately, the EU seems to be having a hard time waking up from the comfort of the last decades when it comes to its own protection, all the signs are that its decisions can only be a reaction, only a consequence of external pressure. After the mandate of President Trump, as a result of his pressure, they promised to reach the goal of 2% of GDP allocated to defense, but this goal has not yet been achieved in 2023 by the major European economic powers. More recently, the prospect of ending US military aid to Ukraine due to a misunderstanding in Congress required European countries, and primarily Germany, to mobilize to compensate for the lack of American funds.

The only reactive behavior of the EU countries is a lesson learned by Donald Trump, and therefore he does not hesitate to play the card of pressure and threats. Recent statements by European leaders demonstrate Europe’s deep concern over Mr. Trump’s return to power and his reluctance to fund European defense. As a result, Europe is beginning to think very seriously about increasing defense spending, increasing military production capacity, and about a military strategy that ensures its own defense, independent of the United States.

Is Donald Trump bluffing? Maybe yes. Moreover, in the geostrategic competition with China, which Mr. Trump declares an element of continuity and even intensification, the US will need as many allies as possible, not as few as possible. Not to mention that a decision like US withdrawal from NATO cannot be made by one person, even if it is POTUS. The US is a powerful state that will always have internal balancing mechanisms (checks and balances) designed to prevent unilateral decisions. An important signal in this regard was already given by the decision voted at the end of last year by the US Congress, which prohibits any US president from withdrawing the US from NATO without the approval of the Senate.

But with a GDP 25 times higher than that of Russia and the same as that of the US, but with a population 40% higher than that of the US, it is time for Europe to finally take itself seriously, because the times are not what Donald Trump suggests an alternative to him.

How threatening is the return of Donald Trump for Romania? The answer is that the above is as valid as possible for Romania. And it, in turn, will have to prove that it is taken seriously as a regional state, still a contender located on the eastern edge of NATO. And the announced increase in military spending to 2.5% of GDP is the easiest step, especially when the bulk of development spending is covered by the EU. A difficult stretch of the road to regional power is a vision of economic development and infrastructure, backed only by its own resources, which would support both defense spending and Romania’s geopolitical position. We are talking about regional scope, which Poland has been cultivating for years, while Romania is still hesitating.

A reliable and strong Romania will only strengthen military cooperation with the US even in the event of a new mandate from Mr. Trump. Let’s not forget that also during the previous mandate, military cooperation between the US and Romania was excellent and even strengthened. There’s no reason it shouldn’t, as long as we do our fair share of the effort. Which, again, means a strong economy and a budget that will no longer suffer from suboptimal fiscal policy or tolerable evasion.

I think it would be naïve to imagine that President-elect Trump could stand idly by in a Europe that has come under military attack from Russia. But of course he wants to avoid that prospect by having as little American money and as much European money as possible. This is also the context in which he proposes to end the war in Ukraine, where most of the financial efforts are made by the US.

And I think that the solution that Mr. Trump will find for Ukraine will be a win-win for Romania in any scenario. A Finlandized Ukraine will increase Romania’s geopolitical importance by attracting appropriate military support. Ukraine in NATO would increase Romania’s security, but would probably also reduce its geostrategic importance, provided that NATO’s borders move further east and the western Black Sea is flanked by two large countries, both NATO members: Ukraine and Turkey.

Let’s remain optimistic, like Europeans, and look more carefully at our own garden, not at someone else’s.

Read and comment on Radu Crăciun’s blog