- ‘Trump has promised to end the (Ukraine) war as soon as possible, potentially by reaching out to Vladimir Putin,’ Spatafora tells Anadolu, pointing also to Harris' clear support for Kyiv- ‘Even with Harris, who supports strong ties with Europe, the Indo-Pacific region will remain a priority for the US ... Europe could, therefore, face increased pressure to manage its security affairs,’ says Spatafora an associate analyst with the EUIS
LONDON
As the countdown to next week’s US presidential election nears its end, European leaders are concerned about the possible implications for the continent.
A victory for either Republican candidate Donald Trump or Kamala Harris of the Democrats would hold vastly different paths not just for US global influence, but also for EU security policy, NATO cooperation, and economic strategies in the face of rising global tensions, experts warn.
Giuseppe Spatafora, an associate analyst on transatlantic and EU-NATO relations at the EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), highlights the election’s potential impact "not only for the direction the US takes domestically but for its role on the global stage."
"Each candidate offers a different path, and this will influence not just US foreign policy but the EU’s own security and economic posture in a complex world," he added.
Shared concerns on China, diverging views on Ukraine
Despite their ideological differences, both candidates prioritize countering China’s global influence, a focal point in the US’ evolving foreign policy that could impact Europe’s economic and strategic landscape.
"There are areas in which Trump and Harris overlap, especially on China, viewed as the main challenge to the US. Both candidates recognize the importance of reshoring strategic industries, a move aimed at boosting the American workforce and bolstering national security," Spatafora explained.
However, on the war in Ukraine, they differ significantly.
Trump’s position has been for a swift end to the conflict, raising the possibility of negotiations with Russia.
"Trump has promised to end the war as soon as possible, potentially by reaching out to Vladimir Putin.
"In contrast, Harris has been clear in her support for Ukraine, reflecting her position aligned with President Biden’s administration and the continued backing of President Zelenskyy," Spatafora explained.
However, he added, some of the long-standing debates on US aid to Ukraine, such as limiting Kyiv’s ability to strike targets deep inside Russia or Ukraine’s admission to NATO, will remain an issue under Vice President Harris.
It remains to be seen how a Harris administration will approach Zelenskyy’s "victory plan" or whether it will gently push for a potential for negotiated solution to the war.
This support aligns with European priorities but may face domestic challenges in the US, given the growing isolationist sentiment among parts of the electorate, he added.
Energy policy: Fossil fuels vs. renewables and the EU’s climate goals
The candidates’ views on energy policy could have direct implications for Europe’s own climate goals.
Trump has rallied around the slogan "drill, baby, drill," advocating for increased fossil fuel production to reduce dependence on foreign energy and achieve US energy independence.
For Europe, this could signal less alignment on climate initiatives and renewables.
Meanwhile, Harris has aligned with the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, advocates for a push towards renewable energy, creating potential cooperation opportunities for Europe in climate and clean energy technology.
"Trump’s energy policy contrasts sharply with Harris’s, who supports a green transition," Spatafora said. "But I’d also indicate that Harris has also backpaddled on some of her pro-green positions such as banning fracking."
"With Europe’s own Green Deal and climate ambitions, a Harris administration would likely reinforce these goals. On the other hand, Trump’s focus on fossil fuels could introduce friction and weaken the climate-focused bond that has grown between the US and the EU over recent years."
NATO, defense spending, and European security autonomy
Europe’s security could also be at stake depending on who wins the White House. While both candidates acknowledge NATO’s importance, their approaches differ.
Trump has historically viewed alliances as transactional, pressuring NATO allies to increase their defense spending and questioning the necessity of the US’ role in Europe’s security.
"Trump has often criticized NATO, seeing it as more of a burden, whereas Harris would likely maintain strong US support for NATO’s expansion and deterrence measures against Russia," Spatafora says.
European leaders remember Trump’s stance during his last term in office, where he demanded that NATO members meet the 2% of GDP defense spending target and suggested that the US should not bear the bulk of Europe’s security costs.
This position resonates with a portion of the American public, particularly within the Republican Party, as well as aides to the former president. "There are advisers within Trump’s circle who advocate for a reduction of the US role in European defense, arguing that the US should focus more on China," noted Spatafora.
The EU, for its part, has shown signs of preparing for a scenario in which the US scales back its commitment to Europe’s defense. Many member states have expanded their defense budgets and worked to build up autonomous defense capabilities for Europe.
"The EU is aware that it must do more for its own defense," Spatafora stated, "but at the same time, it recognizes that the US partnership is essential. This relationship gives Europe leverage on the global stage and allows it to deter aggression more effectively."
The Indo-Pacific pivot and Europe’s global role
Both Trump and Harris are poised to maintain the US pivot to the Indo-Pacific, prioritizing strategic competition with China over Europe’s eastern security concerns.
This shift could compel the EU to shoulder a more significant burden in its own neighborhood, potentially catalyzing Europe’s gradual move toward greater security independence.
"Even with Harris, who supports strong ties with Europe, the Indo-Pacific region will remain a priority for the US,"Spatafora explained. "She might not have the same willingness as Biden to expend political capital on Europe. Europe could, therefore, face increased pressure to manage its security affairs, particularly as the US prioritizes East Asia and the Chinese threat."
Spatafora also pointed out the potential difficulty Harris might face in rallying US public support for European security issues, especially as more voters favor isolationist policies.
"The question is whether Harris would be as committed as Biden in situations like last year’s congressional impasse over a Ukraine funding package. There is a significant portion of US voters — including some Democrats and independents — who believe the US should focus on domestic issues and key threats like China."
"Regardless of the winner, the EU will have to work hard to make sure the transatlantic relationship endures."
