Jamie Dettmer serves as the opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
European leaders, excluding far-right allies like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, are grappling with a pressing question: How should they navigate their relationship with the 47th U.S. President, Donald Trump?
This topic will dominate discussions among influential figures at this week’s Munich Security Conference. Should Trump be treated delicately, approached with empathy, or should leaders adopt a more robust stance, potentially sidelining him until he aligns with global norms? Ignoring the leader of the most powerful nation is hardly an option, nor is capitulation a viable strategy.
Some leaders have responded by mirroring Trump’s administration, becoming stricter on migration policies and delaying commitments to net zero emissions. This tactic not only aligns with Trump’s approach but also assists in countering domestic nationalist movements. However, their actions often come across as inauthentic, reminiscent of individuals coerced into compliance.
In a bid to forge goodwill, British leaders are looking to leverage the royal family, employing King Charles and Prince William as intermediaries with Trump. Given the president’s admiration for the British monarchy, they plan to extend courtesies such as high tea at Windsor Castle, complete with a Guards band playing the “YMCA.”
Trump’s transactional nature is well-known, prompting many world leaders to express their willingness to engage in lucrative deals. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince has proposed a staggering $600 billion investment in the U.S., while European nations contemplate purchasing more American liquefied natural gas. Similarly, India is exploring increased imports of U.S. oil, and Vietnam is considering acquisitions from Boeing, a company currently facing exodus from many international markets.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has also embraced a deal-making approach, recently proposing to open Ukraine’s critical minerals for investment from allies, particularly the U.S. This concept was initially introduced in Zelenskyy’s “victory plan” last year but has now become central to Ukraine’s strategy for maintaining U.S. support.
Recently, Trump expressed interest in this proposal, indicating a willingness to exchange Ukraine’s valuable rare earth minerals for U.S. aid. He stated, “We’re looking to make a deal with Ukraine where they will secure what we’re providing them with their rare earth materials and other resources.”
Prior to Trump’s presidency, Zelenskyy channeled Winston Churchill, rallying support for democracy and freedom. Now, he finds himself pivoting to a more commercial tone, presenting maps showcasing Ukraine’s vast mineral deposits and emphasizing, “If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal.”
In light of Trump’s inaugural address, where he notably omitted the term “democracy,” it may be prudent for leaders to downplay the democratic narrative in favor of more pragmatic discussions. This stark contrast to President Joe Biden’s address, which emphasized democracy 11 times, highlights the evolving dynamics in U.S. politics.
The conventional strategies employed in past administrations no longer resonate in Trump’s Washington. The focus on international human rights and the promotion of democracy, which MAGA supporters deem exaggerated, has been largely dismissed.
Meanwhile, advocates for human rights remain steadfast, attempting to bridge the ideological divide with Washington. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer and 2022 Nobel Prize laureate, has been lobbying in Washington for peace agreements that prioritize accountability for war crimes.
Her message, as she conveyed to POLITICO, is that “first and foremost, we are all humans. When I discuss the horrific atrocities documented, including the illegal abduction of 20,000 children and religious persecution in occupied territories, it resonates with both the American public and officials.”
However, this message fails to gain traction with Trump and his supporters. While Matviichuk advocates for human rights, Trump has imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin.
As European leaders grapple with the optimal approach to Trump—whether through defiance, confrontation (like retaliatory tariffs), deference, or deal-making—they must recognize that the dynamics have shifted. This administration differs significantly from Trump’s first term; they are better equipped, more disciplined, and potentially more ideologically driven.
Both Trump and his MAGA supporters, alongside figures like Elon Musk, do not seek to reform or enhance established political systems or international relations. Instead, they aim to dismantle these frameworks, believing that destruction must precede reconstruction. They are prepared to wield the sledgehammer to achieve their objectives.
The MAGA faction perceives the entire system as corrupt, attributing this decay to both leftists and traditional conservatives. They advocate for a complete overhaul of all governing bodies, including the judiciary, media, bureaucracy, civil society, and international organizations—each deemed in need of dismantling. Their intentions have been overtly articulated in publications and discussions across media platforms.
We find ourselves in a transformed political landscape. While it may be tempting to simplify the narrative as a Trump-centric issue, the reality is that two fundamentally opposing ideologies are at play. Notably, MAGA ideology shares similarities with the beliefs of ideologues close to Putin, including the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin.
According to author Benjamin Teitelbaum, who has explored the intellectual origins of the populist right, hardcore MAGA loyalists favor thinkers like Julius Evola. He advised followers to adopt a strategic approach when confronted with a formidable adversary: When faced with a tiger, one cannot outrun or confront it directly; instead, one must clamber onto its back, endure the struggle, and wait for it to tire.
This metaphor may encapsulate the predicament facing Europe’s mainstream leaders and Trump’s critics—they may need to navigate carefully while attempting to minimize the potential fallout.
