Mr Bieber, should Europe expect the US to invade Greenland any time soon?
Florian Bieber: With Trump, it's hard to say what he really intends to do. But I don't think there's a concrete plan behind his latest statements. I see two aspects: on the one hand, his motto seems to be 'flood the zone with shit'. This attracts a lot of media attention. It ensures that everyone is talking about Trump and distracts from other issues. He has been using this strategy very successfully for nine years. He determines the headlines and public discourse and puts us on the defensive.
On the other hand, he opens up an agenda with content that no one has discussed before and waits to see how others react to it. Perhaps it's about a good starting position for negotiations. Of course, Greenland and the Panama Canal are strategically important for the USA. However, I don't think Trump intends to invade militarily. But if you make outrageous demands, things that were previously out of the question suddenly become negotiable. Perhaps this will lead to better agreements with Greenland on exploiting raw materials or establishing further American military bases. Or Panama will – behind closed doors – lower the fees for passing through the canal.
How should the EU react to Trump's statements?
Bieber: That's a difficult question with no simple answer. Of course, you have to react to it. You can't just ignore such claims. You have to make it clear that public threats between allies are unacceptable. But at the same time, you should be careful not to let yourself be hijacked and to discuss global politics only from Donald Trump's point of view. 'Don't feed the troll', as they say, because that carries the risk of only reacting instead of setting an agenda yourself. And that is precisely the challenge for Europe: to say what WE want, what is essential to the US.
How stable are relations between Europe and the US?
Bieber: One can hope that as long as America remains a democracy, there will be strategic agreements with Europe. Then, as democracies, we have common ground, similar interests, and similar approaches, even if these are, of course, being massively called into question under Trump. However, we cannot rely on the US to guarantee our security as a protective power, even if they remain allies. Under Obama and Biden, America has already tried to withdraw from Europe – at the expense of Ukraine. Strategically, the US’s interests in China, East Asia, and the Middle East are more critical.
What does this mean for Europe?
Bieber: We need a European discussion about defending ourselves without the US. This includes building up larger military capacities and committing to a European foreign and security policy that is more than just defensive and closing borders. No European country can respond to the threats we face alone. It is not just about military defence, whether against Russia or other countries at our external borders. It also means being active in the European surroundings regarding foreign and security policy. It is our enormous interest that Syria becomes a reasonably successful state, as democratic and pluralistic as possible, to which refugees can return. But now that the transfer of power is taking place, I don't see Europe getting involved or even being able to articulate this strategic interest. This shows the weakness of the EU. To prevent refugee movements, they are sometimes allied with autocrats, who are ultimately the cause of conflicts. However, migration can only be effectively counteracted by an active European foreign policy that combats the causes of flight.
Why is so little being done in this regard?
Bieber: Europe is in a state of upheaval. Right-wing populist and extreme right-wing forces are growing stronger. In some states, we have governments that are not so different from Trump's. This makes it more difficult to pursue a firm European policy. Working on this is the great challenge of the coming years. Ultimately, this requires a strengthening and greater self-confidence of those parties that stand up for pluralism, the rule of law, and democracy in opposition to the forces that threaten the fundamental values of the European Union.
Many – even in politics – seem unaware of the threat right-wing populist parties pose to a strong Europe.
Bieber: Absolutely. I also believe that is because they are a silent poison slowly taking hold. Of course, they won't abolish democracy tomorrow. But little by little, they undermine the system. You can see that in countries like Hungary, which are no longer democratic. There are opposition parties there, but there is no longer any critical media that can reach the whole country. For most citizens, such developments are not an immediate threat. But it does marginalise the most vulnerable in society even more. There is an increase in hate speech and violence. Because people see the electoral success of these parties as a licence to attack people who have a different skin colour or a different faith. Eventually, anyone who utters a critical voice is treated as a traitor and met with hostility.
Do you think the current statements by Trump and Musk are helping to further destabilise Europe?
Bieber: This destructive kind of interference and support for right-wing populist and extreme right-wing forces is, in my view, absolutely unacceptable. But ultimately, it is, above all, a European responsibility to defend our democracy. Of course, disinformation campaigns and other actions help the far right – there's no question about it. But it's too easy to try to shift the blame onto Russia or now onto the USA instead of admitting to ourselves that we have a problem in Europe. This requires a European solution.
Does a US withdrawal increase the risk of Putin extending his hand further into Europe?
Bieber: Russia is undoubtedly a threat to Europe at the moment, but Putin's system is built on feet of clay. It works, can mobilise for war, and is astonishingly resilient despite its relative isolation and the war that has been going on for almost three years. But no country can continue like this forever. The question is how long it will continue and whether it will be long enough for Russia to win this war. However, it wants to win it. I imagine that Putin is thinking further in the direction of Europe. But I doubt that he wants to risk a war with NATO. In this respect, a lot depends on the clarity of this military alliance and the EU. If Estonia appears to have been left to its own devices, then the temptation may be there. Otherwise, he has more leeway elsewhere, in Georgia, perhaps Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or Moldova.
You are a strong supporter of the EU's eastward expansion. Why?
Bieber: On the one hand, to show that the European Union is strong and capable of action. That, of course, sends a signal to the outside world that domestic policy is not paralysed. On the other hand, it can only be in Europe's interest not to have a grey area around itself. If Ukraine had been an EU and NATO member, I don't think Russia would have invaded. Grey areas create instability and opportunities for others to assert their influence there.
About Ukraine, I also think that Europe must offer this country, which has sacrificed so much, a real prospect of joining the EU. Otherwise, this would significantly strain relations and harm Europe in the long term. It will also be essential to consider how, after Putin, a pluralistic, non-aggressive Russia can be docked in Europe to prevent it from becoming a threat again. Just as Germany was integrated after the Second World War. I am certainly not one of those who believe that NATO's eastward expansion or other policies are the cause of the war in Ukraine – the responsibility lies squarely with Putin – but I do think that we failed to offer Russia opportunities for structural integration in the 1990s and 2000s. This made it easier for Putin to start this war.