The US Presidential elections are here. How do you envision the relationship between the EU and the USA under Kamala Harris as President, or under Donald Trump?
I think we should really concentrate on the implications of the elections. The two candidates come from different schools of thought. Kamala Harris is a liberal institutionalist, and she understands and values structures like the European Union, NATO and the UN. On the other hand, Donald Trump doesn’t see the value in these institutions.
We saw this during his first term when he used the word “Brussels” in a negative way, he saw it as a confusing “Tower of Babel” with mixed identities and cultures. He often mocks the European Union, and he also doesn’t like NATO—that’s one of his many worrying qualities.
So, there will be policy implications if Donald Trump is elected. Not so much with Harris – it would be a continuation of what was before. We understand her, and she understands us. But the old transatlanticists are gone – Joe Biden is the ‘last of the Romans’, so to speak. There’s an inevitable shift in American focus towards a lesser emphasis on European security.
If Trump is elected, he will come with demands and his strategy of operating is to make shocking arguments. A second Trump term could drive the EU-USA relations towards bilateralism, where countries like Germany or Poland deal directly with the US. We have to protect our institutions and keep them out of harm’s way.
With Finland now a NATO member and Trump often critical of NATO, do you worry that a second Trump term could weaken the alliance, or potentially tear it apart?
Trump doesn’t buy into the concept of collective defence; his mindset is purely transactional, viewing alliances in terms of what the US can gain. During his first term, Trump pushed for increased defence spending in NATO and we’re almost certain he’ll push for 3% if elected.
For countries like Finland, this might make sense – Poland is already close to 5% of defence spending. Trump likes countries that contribute to the US security agenda, and spending more money on defence increases the likelihood of buying American weapon systems.
Trump’s preference for leaders like Putin and Kim Jong-un is part of a wider view where he’d prefer “great powers” to have their own spheres of influence, remaining out of each other’s way. For countries like Finland, this is particularly concerning, as Russia views it as within its “Russkiy Mir,” or “Russian World.”
It’s clear that Kamala Harris would be the easier option. She’d be a continuation of Biden’s policies. We need to develop our own capabilities because US interests, as we’ve seen with restrictions on Ukrainian missile types, sometimes diverge from ours.
Ukraine seems to be on the EU fast track, alongside Moldova, yet some Western Balkans countries have waited years. How realistic is Ukrainian EU membership?
In a positive scenario, Ukraine manages to stabilise the war – maybe not through a peace agreement but through a process of saturation, and eventually a pause in the fighting. At the moment, Ukraine is a very powerful country, militarily speaking. They’ve developed their own missiles and other technology and have great capabilities. The EU needs to recognize that a continued limbo is dangerous – look at Georgia. The strategic decision is to integrate Ukraine because leaving them in uncertainty plays into Russia’s hands.
One of the aspects of war is fear – it makes us recoil and be fearful. Fear leads to unwise decisions, and those escalate wars. Europe needs to show no hesitation with Ukraine, and that will also signal to Russia that we are serious.
You’re part of the European Parliament, the EU’s only directly elected body. How do you see Parliament’s role in the future vis-a-vis the Commission and the Council?
The European Parliament wields significant influence; around 70% of Finnish laws originate from here. As the EU’s only directly elected institution, we have a unique responsibility to connect our legislation with people’s lives. Citizens often feel detached from EU processes, and the key to bridging that gap lies in drafting laws that are both practical and relevant.
To rebuild trust, we must demonstrate a clear capacity for creating laws that serve everyday needs. Strategic, thoughtful legislation can diminish the scepticism that currently surrounds EU institutions and foster a closer bond between the Union and its citizens – and the European Parliament is key.
Interview conducted by Nenad Jurdana.
Read the response to our letter sent to EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell regarding the EU’s Afghanistan policy and human rights issues, with a particular focus on Afghan women’s rights.
EU Watch interviewed Finnish politician Mika Aaltola, who serves for the first time as a Member of the European Parliament. We discussed the issues of the impact of US elections on Europe’s security, NATO and the EU enlargement.
EU Watch interviewed Austrian politician Helmut Brandstätter, who serves for the first time as a Member of the European Parliament. We discussed the issues of Ukraine’s support, EU enlargement, migration and media freedom.
