Hail Trump the Disruptor — but for good or for ill?
This has him at odds with many in the Washington establishment. Analysts at Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon typically concentrate on war-gaming out second-, third- and fourth-order effects of any given policy approach and determining all potential reactions and counteractions that might result during a conflict.
Capitol Hill, consequently, in light of perceived recent U.S. failures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is aghast at this new approach. In the wake of the U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, they are reflexively demanding clearly defined end states and exit strategies.
But Trump's early handling of Ukraine was a sign of things to come. Instead of effecting a maximum pressure campaign against Russian President Vladimir Putin to put an end to his illegal military invasion, Trump unleashed a war of words on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky during their January meeting in the Oval Office. Team Trump abruptly curtailed military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv. The immediate result was bloody chaos across the frontlines in Ukraine.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine's lodgment in the Russian oblast of Kursk was lost as Ukrainian troops were forced into a tactical withdrawal. Putin exploited the rift between Trump and Zelensky to increase his attacks against cities, including a children's playground in Kryvyi Rih — the Ukrainian president's home town — that killed 19 people.
Yet, out of that chaos — notwithstanding the unacceptably high cost of Ukrainian blood and treasure — Trump prodded European Union and NATO leaders into action. The European Commission proposed an €800 billion plan to rearm Europe, which was later dubbed Readiness 2030, as a counterweight to the growing Russia threat.
It also led to NATO, on Sunday, adopting a far higher defense spending target for its members than the current benchmark of 2 percent of GDP. The 32-member defensive alliance agreed to a 250 percent increase in the spending target to 5 percent of gross national product. Madrid sought and received an exemption. According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Spain's spending will be evaluated in 2029.
Likewise, it has shaken Berlin from its Russian doldrums. Friedrich Merz, Germany's newly elected chancellor, was elected on a right-leaning political platform that included doing 'whatever it takes' for Berlin to rebuild the Bundeswehr into Europe's strongest army. One of his first acts was to pledge €5 billion in new aid to Ukraine.
More broadly, as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted Tuesday, Europe is 'integrating our defense industries as if Ukraine was in the EU.' Rutte also stated in a press conference that the European Union and Canada had already pledged €35 billion to Ukraine's defense in the first half of 2025 alone.
In short, as a result of Trump's chaotic approach to the war in Ukraine, Europe is awakening and increasing its economic and military burden share — as it should. These are all good end results.
But then, what is the long-term cost of Trump's innovations to U.S. national security? After all, by acting in his own best interest versus the NATO alliance's collective interest, Trump risks alienating Washington from Brussels.
Operation Midnight Hammer showed that the U.S. remains dependent on its European military bases to project force into the Middle East and beyond. The B-2 Spirit stealth bombers launched against Iran from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri were refueled en route by USAF air tankers operating from forward bases in the United Kingdom, Spain, German and Italy.
Disruption can be an effective tool to bring about transformative change, as evidenced by Brussels' much-needed awakening about its deficient defense spending in the face of growing Russian threats to Europe. Ditto Trump's first-term landmark Abraham Accords, which transformed Israeli relations with much of the Arab world.
Similarly, Trump's rapid use of force in Iran disrupted Khamenei's nuclear weapons program — by just how much is still being debated.
Yet disruption can also be risky, especially when it comes to military alliances. Once again, Trump attempted to disrupt the accepted meaning of Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Ahead of travel to The Hague for a NATO summit, Trump was asked whether he remained committed to the bedrock of the alliance.
His response? 'Depends on your definition. There [are] numerous definitions of Article Five. You know that, right?'
Undermining the NATO alliance is self-defeating, especially if Trump or a future president needs to rely on Europe for military force projection or our own self-defense, as on 9/11. It also weakens the key role Article Five plays in establishing U.S. strategic deterrence against Russia.
Changes in policy direction and outcomes will only take Trump so far. Clearly defined U.S. desired end states are still needed. Presently they are glaringly lacking in Ukraine and Iran.
Ukraine remains in an existential hot war. Putin still refuses to agree to Trump's proposed ceasefire with Kyiv. And Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has, at least for now, survived to fight another day and potentially yet achieve nuclear breakout.
Time affords our nation's enemies space to regroup and rebuild. Putin is doing just that with his wartime economy in Russia, including expanded military bases along Finland's border. The future threat to Eastern and Western Europe is very real. Putin is also continuing to fight his war of attrition against Ukraine.
Khamenei and his regime, meanwhile, if given a chance to survive, are not going to change course. Military action can destroy facilities, but it cannot destroy technical know-how. If left unchecked, Iran can rebuild its centrifuges, ballistic missiles and air defense network. For now, it seems, his heinous regime has survived to do just that.
End-goals do not need expiration dates to succeed. We witnessed that with post-World War II Germany and Japan. They just require clarity.
History will judge whether Trump will be seen as a positive disruptor or a reckless and harmful one. If he wants it to be the former, then the president needs to be clear about his end-goals for Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. Their combined ideological global war against the West is not going to go away, and disruption alone cannot win it.
Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Why I've changed my mind about a state of Palestine
The tragic images of starvation emerging from Gaza have shocked and angered the world. Yet we've become dangerously desensitized to the daily toll of death and destruction, seemingly powerless to intervene. But when even President Trump is moved to acknowledge 'real starvation' in his press briefings, it signals a potential turning point. Israel's response to the barbaric attacks 21 long months ago is increasingly testing the international community. Every state has the right to defend itself – but also the responsibility to wield force judiciously. How retribution is carried out, how military power is applied, and how operations affect civilians in the invaded territories all matter deeply. It confirms our values and distinguishes us from those we must fight. The scale of continued suffering in Gaza cannot be justified solely by Israel's right to defeat Hamas. This is not to say Hamas should not be confronted – but rather Israel's absence of a discernible strategy to convert battlefield gains into lasting peace, or to separate Hamas from the broader Palestinian population. Two-thirds of Gaza lies in ruins. Two million people are displaced. And dozens die weekly, not in combat, but for inching forward in chaotic food lines, desperate for handouts. On the ground, Hamas forces have been severely weakened. Iran, its proxy backer, has also been constrained. And yet, famine now looms as the deadliest threat. Under international pressure, Israel has permitted food airdrops into Gaza. But, as UN aid chief Tom Fletcher has said, these are 'a drop in the ocean'. Airdrops are inefficient, especially while hundreds of aid trucks wait, fully loaded, at sealed border crossings. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has kept those crossings closed and removed food distribution from UN agencies, handing it to the Israeli Defence Forces, who lack the infrastructure or experience to manage it effectively. Let's be blunt. Beyond 'destroying Hamas', Netanyahu offers no credible endgame, no plan for post-conflict governance in Gaza, no roadmap toward the long-promised two-state solution. His actions suggest a strategy of perpetual conflict. Regional powers, including Egypt, Jordan and the UAE, along with much of the international community, are eager to help. Not only to address the humanitarian crisis but to support the establishment of a credible post-Hamas governance structure that's likely to require international supervision. But Netanyahu rejects such support, shielded by continued backing from the White House, which has so far extended understandable but seemingly unconditional support following the Hamas attacks. However, Netanyahu's tactical decisions, lacking any strategic vision, are beginning to test that support. Where is he taking this conflict – a conflict that, in a broader sense, has been ongoing since 1948. His devastating campaign in Gaza and continued illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank suggest an intent to make a two-state solution unviable. In 2014, when the UK Parliament last debated Palestinian recognition, I responded as a foreign minister, saying Britain would recognise Palestine only when it judged such a move would aid the peace process, not as a symbolic gesture. It's a card that can only be played once, so it must be used wisely. It's easy to argue that now is not the right time – that we must focus on the immediate crisis. But I would argue that now is exactly the right time, to deliver a jolt that might reverse a dangerous trajectory, one that risks closing the window on a two-state solution forever. This issue is on the agenda at the UN in New York. Recognition could help shift global focus, isolate Hamas politically, and undercut Iran's justification for arming proxies in the region. Waiting endlessly for the 'perfect moment' is not a strategy. The current status quo, or the pursuit of a one-state solution, will only entrench a perpetual insurgency, fuelled externally and leaving Israel in a state of permanent tensions with its neighbours. As Trump's support for Netanyahu grows more conditional - including calls for decisive action to prevent famine – let's leverage this to refocus attention on the broader strategic imperative: achieving a two-state solution. Without that, suffering, extremism, and endless war will continue. Tobias Ellwood is a former foreign minister
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's trade deal with the EU: What it means for your wallet
Tariffs, including the new 15% rate for most imports from the EU, would raise consumer prices by 1.8% in the short run, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Here's where shoppers could see higher prices. Imported cars, pharmaceuticals, apparel and more could grow more expensive in the months to come as the United States imposes a 15% tariff on most imports from the European Union. Analysts have labeled the agreement, announced July 27, as a win for President Donald Trump, whose administration had been working to complete deals by a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline. U.S. stocks opened mostly higher on July 28, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq reaching record highs after Trump announced a tariff far below the 30% rate threatened earlier in the month. But for U.S. consumers, even the reduced tariff is expected to spur higher prices. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that Trump's tariffs, including the new rate for EU imports, would raise prices by 1.8% in the short run, the equivalent of an average household income loss of roughly $2,400. While the increase may sound insignificant, 'the Federal Reserve's inflation target is 2%. So we're talking about almost a year's worth of inflation above and beyond the inflation that we would've gotten anyways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab. 'So that's meaningful.' Here are some of the sectors that could see higher prices in the months to come. European cars Automobiles, one of the EU's largest export sectors, will likely see some of the most noticeable price hikes, according to Gary Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. While the 15% tariff is a relief from the current 27.5% rate, Hufbauer said the auto industry's margins are thin enough that EU companies won't want to absorb the higher cost. 'I suspect European auto prices sold in the U.S. will go up probably at least 10%,' he told USA TODAY. German Association of the Automotive Industry President Hildegard Müller warned the 15% tariff could cost the German automotive industry 'billions annually.' Already, Volkswagen has trimmed its full-year sales forecast after reporting a $1.5 billion hit from tariffs over the first half of the year. Automobile price hikes will likely vary across European makes and models, according to Tedeschi, since many already operate factories in North America. That means trade deals with Canada and Mexico could also influence pricing. 'Consumers should keep an eye out for rising prices for European car imports, but they should not assume that all European brands are going to go up in price because of how complicated the supply chain is,' he said, adding that he expects to see price increases tied to the new EU tariffs play out this summer and fall. What were the EU tariffs before? What to know after trade deal Furniture Furniture is another sector that could get hit by tariffs, according to Stephen Brown, Capital Economics' deputy chief North America economist. The Swedish company IKEA, for instance, relies on China, Poland, Italy, Germany and Sweden to supply 'the majority' of products, according to its website. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Inter IKEA ‒ which produces IKEA furniture ‒ told Reuters in November that just 10% of the products it sells in the U.S. are made in the region. 'Unless they find somewhere else to import from or move around their supply chain, furniture prices ... could see some effects,' Brown said. Pharmaceuticals While certain sectors like wine and spirits appear to still be under negotiation, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said pharmaceuticals will be covered by the 15% tariff, with certain generic drugs not subject to tariffs. The EU is behind about 60% of pharmaceutical imports to the U.S., according to Reuters, making them the largest European export to the U.S. by value. But Brown noted that pharmaceutical companies may be able to more easily shift production to the U.S. compared to other industries. For instance, the Danish manufacturer behind the GLP-1s Wegovy and Ozempic, Novo Nordisk, already has a presence in North Carolina and has plans to expand. 'Although there could be some short-term price increases, those might not be as durable as they are for other products,' Brown said. Additionally, consumers may not pick up on the industry's price hikes if their insurance covers the imported drug. Luxury items Luxury items like imported designer handbags and apparel could also see higher prices, as well as imported food. 'The difference between China and Europe, in terms of tariffs, is that the tariffs on China increase what people buy in Walmart and Target. The tariffs on European imports will mainly hit what people buy at Whole Foods and high-end retail stores,' said Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He noted that the companies behind luxury goods tend to have higher margins, though, and may be more willing to absorb some of the higher costs tied to tariffs. Machinery Machinery and appliances are also major exports from the EU, accounting for roughly 20% of U.S. imports from the EU in 2021, according to the Commerce Department. While consumers won't buy machinery directly, experts warn the higher prices could eventually trickle down as manufacturers adjust to higher costs. 'These are not necessarily products that immediately or directly impact the consumers, but they can indirectly affect consumers, especially after many years,' Tedeschi said.
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Top Chinese, US trade officials huddle in Sweden for second day of thorny talks over tariffs
The United States has struck deals over tariffs with some of its key trading partners — including Britain, Japan and the European Union — since President Donald Trump announced 'Liberation Day' tariffs against dozens of countries in April. China remains perhaps the biggest unresolved case. Advertisement 'The Chinese have been very pragmatic,' Greer said in comments posted on social media by his office late Monday. 'Obviously we've had a lot of tensions over the years. We have tensions now, but the fact that we are regularly meeting with them to address these issues gives us a good footing for these negotiations.' 'Whether there will be a deal or not, I can't say,' Greer added in the clip posted on X from MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'. 'Whether there's room for an extension, I can't say at this point. But the conversations are constructive and they're going in the right direction.' Many analysts expect that the Stockholm talks, at a minimum, will result in an extension of current tariff levels that are far lower than the triple-digit percentage rates as the U.S.-China tariff tiff crescendoed in April, sending world markets into a temporary tailspin. Advertisement The two sides backed off the brink during bilateral talks in Geneva in May and agreed to a 90-day pause — which is set to end on Aug. 12 — of those sky-high levels. They currently stand at U.S. tariffs of 30% on Chinese goods, and China's 10% tariff on U.S. products. Other issues on the agenda include access of American businesses to the Chinese market; Chinese investment in the U.S.; components of fentanyl made in China that reach U.S. consumers; Chinese purchases of Russian and Iranian oil; and American steps to limit exports of Western technology, like chips that help power artificial intelligence systems. Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator and now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said that Trump's team would face challenges from 'a large and confident partner that is more than willing to retaliate against U.S. interests.' Rollover of tariff rates 'should be the easy part,' she said, warning that Beijing has learned lessons since the first Trump administration and 'will not buy into a one-sided deal this time around.' On Monday, police have cordoned off a security zone along Stockholm's vast waterfront as rubbernecking tourists and locals sought a glimpse of the top-tier officials through a phalanx of TV news cameras lined up behind metal barriers. Flagpoles at the prime minister's office were festooned with the American and Chinese flags.
