A deepening sense of disappointment is sweeping over the main European countries as the dust settles over President Barack Obama’s first trip to Europe. Coming weeks may demonstrate the unthinkable: that the bubble of Obama-mania in Europe has sprung enough leaks to start bursting soon.
The people’s love affair with him continues albeit with added caution but specialists find few substantive changes in US positions on key issues, as they sift with rested heads through what his team actually said and did.
In terms of domestic US politics, Obama was courageous and reached out with an open hand in words unheard for half a century. He may have to pay a price in Washington and among his electorate for sounding almost apologetic about American behavior, although he balanced that with criticism of unthinking European anti-Americanism.
But for Europeans, his domestic political courage is less relevant than his actions on issues that gather urgency by the day. The package of words used is more thoughtful than in the past but the demands they cloak are as hard-edged as those of former President George Bush.
Apart from the economy, the key strategic issues for Europeans are relations with a resurgent Russia and electors’ opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan especially in areas where they risk harm or death.
On the substance of these issues, the Obama administration’s signals are little different from those of the Bush regime. Like Bush, he wants the European NATO allies to bear a much greater burden of money, resources and combat in Afghanistan.
Obama used humbler words but his message was more urgent. He wants Europeans to step into Afghanistan right now and well in time to provide security in vast and lawless rural areas before the August elections.
More than half of those areas suffer regular violence by Taliban fighters. Providing security without using aerial bombing and drones that kill civilians is far from easy. That “collateral damage” will inevitably undermine the elections.
Obama wants a surge of 30,000 to 35,000 troops, including about 17,000 to 20,000 additional Americans. This is a far tougher demand than Bush ever made on NATO’s Europeans in Afghanistan. Politically, there is almost zero feasibility for this in Europe. So Obama is almost certainly heading for a nasty fall before the summer on this issue.
On relations with Russia, the situation is worse. Both Washington and Moscow have agreed to reset their relations but the complexity of issues far exceeds the simple schematic suggested by Obama’s people. Again that schematic is similar to the one drawn by Bush.
Like Bush, Obama wants Russia to help stymie Iran’s covert plans for a nuclear weapon and prevent it from achieving military and political deterrence to perpetuate its theocratic regime. He gave a rousing speech about a achieving a nuclear weapons free world but none of America’s adversaries are naïve enough to change their plans soon.
Continuing Bush’s carrot and stick approach, Obama wants Iran and other ambitious nations, including North Korea, to face concrete punishment if they try to enrich uranium or build intercontinental ballistic missiles.
But neither Obama nor his allies have anything in their arsenal of punishments painful enough to deter such regimes, apart from military strikes which are fraught with other consequences. In any case, Europeans will never go along with any military plans.
There is very little chance that Russia will give useful help without moves for an agreement to a new sphere of influence creating a buffer zone between its territory and Europe. That means Georgia, Ukraine and several Central European and Central Asian countries would become untouchable for the US.
For some Europeans these are life or death matters, especially for the new countries that were recently in the Soviet fold. But the European Union’s six founding members would prefer stability and peace with Russia at all costs.
So Obama’s softer words change little regarding the choices facing various Europeans in balancing their relations between the US and Russia. The new Russia is much more confusing in its internal workings than the Soviet Union and is, therefore, more difficult to work with. Yet, it is no less distrustful of American and European intentions.
To get something in this situation, Obama will have to give a lot. But that may be nearly impossible in light of the disarray within his party and the Republicans about almost every foreign policy issue, starting with Russia’s more aggressive behavior.