Europe's 'Trump shock' is opportunity to forge 'new West,' Timothy Garton Ash says
A so-called "Trump shock" has plunged Europe into its deepest crisis since 1945, but also presents an opportunity for the continent to forge a "new West," British historian and commentator Timothy Garton Ash has said in an interview with the Kyiv Independent.
The first months of Trump's presidency dispelled any illusions in European capitals that the long-held transatlantic partnership would hold firm no matter who sits in the White House.
Washington has signaled reduced military presence in Europe and slashed funding for vital programs promoting democracy and human rights across the continent, putting the U.S.'s role as the leader of the free world in doubt.
Amid perhaps the greatest challenge to Europe's security, Trump also seems to be washing his hands of the Russia-Ukraine war without even attempting to exert additional pressure on Moscow or boost Kyiv's fighting chance.
The "Trump shock" is only accumulating the security challenges facing Europe in what may be its deepest crisis since World War II, Ash told the Kyiv Independent during an interview in Lviv on May 16.
Yet, therein also lies an opportunity for European leaders to forge a "new West" that would preserve what's left of the liberal world order amid rising authoritarianism and populism, he adds.
Reflecting on world events since his last interview with the Kyiv Independent in May 2024, Ash admits that the U.S. may never be what it was. But, drawing on his background as a historian, he notes that history is full of examples of swings between surging authoritarianism, and a successful liberal fight-back.
Editor's note: The interview has been edited for clarity.
The Kyiv Independent: Last time we talked, you said that we are at the beginning of a new era, and our first steps are going to shape what this new era looks like. One year later, Donald Trump has been elected U.S. president, he jump started major changes in the global security order, Russia's war against Ukraine continues, and populism is rising across Europe. How would you evaluate these first steps of the new era?
Timothy Garton Ash: The triple shock: the Putin shock, what I call the Xi Jinping shock, and now the Trump shock means that we are in the deepest crisis Europe has been in for a very long time, in some respects, since 1945.
But it also means that we all know that in Europe.
Last Friday (May 9), while Xi Jinping and President Lula (of Brazil) and (Prime Minister) Robert Fico of Slovakia were sitting with Vladimir Putin on Red Square, EU foreign ministers were sitting in the Lviv City Hall just up the road to show their solidarity with Ukraine.
And then (French) President Emmanuel Macron, (German) Chancellor Friedrich Mertz, (U.K.) Prime Minister Starmer and (Polish Prime Minister Donald) Tusk were in Kyiv.
So the crisis has become deeper, but the possibility that Europe might seize the opportunity of the crisis is also more apparent.
The Kyiv Independent: Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has cast itself as a leader of the free world. Would you say that it is now abandoning this role? And if so, why now?
Timothy Garton Ash: Excellent question. I think there's no doubt at all that Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world, whatever that means, and that the West as a geopolitical actor does not exist today in the way we've assumed it existed for the last 80 years. And that is a result of two different things: America and Trump.
There's a long-term trend of the United States becoming less committed to and less engaged in Europe, which started already after the end of the Cold War. It was happening under the Democrats and under the Republicans. It's turning either to what (Barack) Obama called nation-building at home, or the pivot to Asia.
"United States will never again be what it was before."
Then you have the Trump factor, which is this extreme narcissistic bully who obviously has a special relationship with Vladimir Putin and who is abandoning the notion of the United States as a defender of the liberal international order and basically positioning the United States as one transactional great power amongst many.
What does that mean? It means we have a really urgent challenge for the four years of Trump, but we also have a long-term challenge because the United States will never again be what it was before.
The Kyiv Independent: If the U.S. abandons this role and the era of the U.S.-led unipolar world ends, how will the new global security order look?
Timothy Garton Ash: First of all, we never really had a unipolar world. Even the U.S.-led liberal international order was only a large part of the world. It worked because the United States was what the Princeton scholar John Ikenberry calls a "Liberal Leviathan."
The Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO was always a U.S. general. We had the U.S. nuclear guarantee for our security in Europe. We certainly had a U.S. security order in Europe, in significant parts of Asia and in Oceania, Australia, New Zealand.
That's what's now in question. So I believe that if we are to preserve what's left of the liberal international order, which is not a great deal, it's up to us as Europeans, but also other liberal democratic partners.
"The forces of integration and disintegration in Europe are quite finely balanced at the moment."
Suddenly, Canada becomes much more important to us. Australia becomes important to us. Japan becomes important to us. In other words, there's a whole new constellation of liberal international order — if you like, a new West.
The Kyiv Independent: What is Europe's role in the era of weakening transatlantic relations, of rising authoritarianism around the world?
Timothy Garton Ash: First of all, our role is to defend ourselves and to look after what we've achieved in Europe over the last 80 years. That means defending ourselves against external enemies or challenges. Obviously, Vladimir Putin's Russia in the first place, but also China in a different way, and other powers.
Read also: Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Debunking Putin's 'root causes' claims
Secondly, it would be to try and preserve at least some elements of what we call the liberal international order — for example, a free trading world, an international economic order. The EU is a regulatory superpower. Can we preserve some of those shared regulations around the world?
The Kyiv Independent: How would you evaluate Europe's response so far to these new shocks, specifically to the shock of the Trump administration?
Timothy Garton Ash: I think the political will at the top is now there. The question is capability. Just in purely military terms, there's a short list of things that only the United States can provide — the intelligence, the Patriot interceptor missiles, the strategic enablers.
Beyond that, the political will may be there at the top in Europe, but can our leaders continue to persuade their publics through a whole series of national elections that this is the course we should stick to? We have Viktor Orban as the veto player in Hungary. We have Robert Fico in Slovakia.
Very soon, we will probably have a nationalist president of Romania (The interview took place on May 16, before far-right George Simion was defeated in the Romanian presidential election by pro-EU Nicusor Dan).
According to the current opinion polls, Mr. (Andrej) Babis will probably come back (to power) in the Czech Republic. So suddenly, you've got a whole group of countries that want a very different Ukraine policy and Russia policy.
The Kyiv Independent: How can Europe avoid sliding into populism? How can the continent avoid falling into the same trap as the U.S.?
Timothy Garton Ash: I would say the forces of integration and disintegration in Europe are quite finely balanced at the moment.
We have to be tough on populism and tough on the causes of populism. We have to fight the nationalist populist and make a convincing case to our public for a different approach.
But we also have to understand why they continue to get large numbers of votes. For example, the sense that large parts of our societies have been both economically and culturally neglected in the name of liberalism.
And we need to show that we care, we're actually doing something for them economically, that culturally we don't just care about specific minorities in the name of multiculturalism, but we actually care about everyone in our societies.
It's pretty tough to do those two things at the same time, and also build up our defense spending and our support for Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent: In your book, Homelands, you talk about different definitions of Europe. You say that some European nations that went through dictatorships see Europe as a sort of community of democratic, liberal ideals that they seek to return to. And that's certainly true for Ukraine, as we've seen during the EuroMaidan Revolution. But if Europe and the West are indeed moving away from these ideals, how will that impact Ukraine's path toward democracy?
Timothy Garton Ash: There's always been an anti-liberal Europe, as well as a liberal Europe throughout European history. And it's always been a great mistake to believe that the liberal Europe has prevailed once and for all. By the way, there are also liberal and anti-liberal forces in Ukraine, let's make no mistake about that.
The two things are intimately connected. It's very difficult to imagine Ukraine making a successful transition to a prosperous, sovereign, democratic European future if Europe is disintegrating next door. It's quite difficult to imagine a successful, liberal, democratic, integrated Europe if Ukraine is disintegrating next door.
Both because of the security and migration challenges, but also because we have, in a way, staked our European reputation now on Ukraine. European integration and Ukrainian integration, or European disintegration and Ukrainian disintegration.
But this won't be decided in the next few months. I would say, let's talk again towards the end of the 2020s, and we'll see which tendencies have prevailed.
The Kyiv Independent: Since we are obviously heading toward even more challenging times, can history give us hope or teach us lessons about how democracy can persevere under these challenges?
Timothy Garton Ash: It's going to give us both hope and warnings.
The warning is that just when everybody takes things for granted, they start going wrong. The analogy there would be Europe before 1914. In a way, Europe — certainly before 2014, but arguably up to 2022 — was assuming that it would just be more peaceful summers.
The hope is that we already have examples of successful liberal fightback. The Polish (2023 parliamentary) election is a classic example of a (country) which had nearly gone in the direction of Hungary and an electoral-authoritarian, non-liberal regime, and then it came back.
The larger lesson is that you have these wave movements in history. We had what I would call a liberal democratic revolution across Europe and much of the world from the early 1970s to the 2000s. Now we have an anti-liberal counter-revolution. But with time, people start discovering that that doesn't deliver either.
In fact, it delivers even less. And if you look at the enormous demonstrations in Serbia, large demonstrations in Hungary in support of an opposition candidate, and in Turkey after the imprisonment of Mr. (Ekrem) Imamoglu, you see that the fightback also comes from the countries that have gone authoritarian.
Read also: How much does a Russian drone attack on Ukraine cost? The question is more complicated than it sounds
Note from the author:
Hi, this is Martin Fornusek. I hope you enjoyed this interview.
To underscore its main points, we are facing one of the most challenging periods in history, and the actions of every one of us matter. Our team strives every day to bring you in-depth insights into Russia's ongoing war and Ukraine's resistance, but we wouldn't be able to do so without the support of readers like you. To help us continue in this work, please consider supporting our reporting.
Thank you very much.
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
16 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Stocks Calm on Mideast De-Escalation Reports
Get a jump start on the US trading day with Matt Miller, Katie Greifeld and Sonali Basak on "Bloomberg Open Interest." Relative calm returned to global markets, with stocks climbing and oil sinking as fears subsided that Israel's war against Iran would escalate into a wider conflict. And President Trump's family unveils a new Trump-branded mobile phone service called "T1 Mobile" that will rely on pre-existing wireless networks and hardware. And is manufacturing coming back to the US? We'll talk to the CEO of the manufacturing company Flex on what could be a factory revival in North America. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
G7 leaders seek to contain Israel-Iran conflict
The Group of Seven summit has begun in Canada with world leaders scrambling to contain the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, with US President Donald Trump reiterating his call for the two countries to start negotiating. "They should talk, and they should talk immediately," he told reporters. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said all G7 leaders agree they "have to find a way to de-escalate the situation" in the Middle East because the Israel-Iran conflict risks inflaming the "tinderbox" of the Gaza Strip and hurting the global economy. Starmer said he had spoken to Trump about the issue, adding "the risk of the conflict escalating is obvious, I think, and the implications, not just for the region but globally, are really immense, so the focus has to be on de-escalation". .@POTUS is officially welcomed by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to the G7 Summit — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 16, 2025 German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters on Monday ahead of the summit beginning in the Canadian Rocky Mountains that Germany is planning to draw up a final communique proposal on the Israel-Iran conflict that will stress that "Iran must under no circumstances be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons-capable material". But as Trump met with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, he also stressed it was a mistake to remove Russia from the organisation in 2014 and doing so had destabilised the world. He also suggested it could be a good idea to add China to the G7. The US president also seemed to put a greater priority on his planned emphasis on addressing his grievances with other countries' trade policies. "Our primary focus will be trade," Trump said of his talks with Carney. This year's G7 summit is full of combustible tensions and it is unclear how the gathered world leaders can work together to resolve them. Trump already has hit several dozen countries with severe tariffs that risk a global economic slowdown. There is little progress on settling the wars in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, and now a new conflict between Israel and Iran. "We're gathering at one of those turning points in history," Carney said. "The world's more divided and dangerous." But as the news media was escorted from the opening session, Carney could be heard as he turned to Trump and referenced how his remarks about the Middle East, Russia and China had already drawn attention to the summit. "Mr President, I think you've answered a lot of questions already," Carney said. Trump wants to focus on trade although he may have to balance those issues with the broader need by the G7 countries - which also include France, Italy and Japan - to project a united front. Leaders who are not part of the G7 but have been invited to the summit by Carney include the heads of state of Australia, India, Ukraine, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates. The G7 briefly expanded to the G8 with Russia as a member, only for Russia to be expelled in 2014 after annexing Crimea and taking a foothold in Ukraine that preceded its 2022 invasion of the country.


Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. 'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?' The measure is part of the version of President Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. 'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.' Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. 'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.' About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. 'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. 'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.' Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.