Interview with a Former Ambassador
“Trump’s presidency and the crisis of the international order have accelerated the disintegration of that order. This has contributed to the emergence of a more conflict-prone world. For Europe, this creates not merely a goal, but an obligation to regroup.
Against the backdrop of the threat of strategic abandonment, Europe must seize a historic opportunity and become a full-fledged security actor… Along with safeguarding its security, this process also places on Europe the obligation to fully protect its democratic achievements,” believes diplomat Gocha Javakhishvili.
We spoke with him about how U.S.-European relations are changing, what Trump seeks to achieve, what will happen if the U.S. is no longer an active ally of the EU, and what kind of restructuring has begun in Europe following Trump’s statements.
“Europe has not lost all hope… If there is anything positive to be found in all this, it is that Europe is being forced to ensure its own security. In the latest negotiations [on ending the Russia–Ukraine war], the United States stated that it would intervene if its own interests were threatened,” says Gocha Javakhishvili.
What can Georgia expect amid global political changes?
“The loyalty of Georgia’s population is extremely important, something citizens have been demonstrating for more than a year now on Rustaveli Avenue. The fact that a large part of Georgian society remains committed to European values gives hope to the European Union. That is why many believe that Europe’s fate is also being decided, in part, in Tbilisi,”Javakhishvili told Batumelebi.
Batumelebi recorded this interview with Gocha Javakhishvili, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to France and Monaco.
Mr. Gocha, how do you interpret Trump’s recent statements toward the European Union? What do you think motivates Trump’s actions as the leader of a global power?
This is a very complex question. Let us take a brief historical detour to understand why hearing such a position from an American leader today is so shocking.
The international order established after World War II was based on liberalism and multilateralism. America’s strength always lay in the centrality of alliances, where the U.S. had the decisive voice.
During Trump’s first presidency, from 2017 to 2021, an attitude toward structural trends was already visible. That period became a catalyst for the gradual disengagement of the United States from traditional partnerships. When Trump returned with a second mandate, he immediately withdrew, for example, from the Paris Climate Agreement. This already signaled that he would question Western traditional partnerships and Western alliances.
We already knew that Trump did not like Europe and did not particularly value it. For the United States, Europe remained not a strategic partner but a commercial one essentially a business partner and even then, under the condition of imposing high tariffs. Through this, the U.S. emphasizes its own advantage.
Trump’s approach to Europe and transatlantic security represents a rupture with America’s traditional policy. This threatens the stability of the liberal order upon which Western partnership and unity were based.
NATO, which was considered the backbone of collective Western security, was repeatedly criticized by Trump. Moreover, he openly considered reducing U.S. contributions, arguing that the financial burden was disproportionate.
The U.S. president is not a random figure. He knows that his words can trigger stock market fluctuations. Trump criticizes European leaders individually and collectively, saying they do not know what they are doing, that the idea of Europe was good but European leaders are going down the wrong path, and so on.
In effect, this rhetoric from the American president soothes Russia.
Trump’s message that the United States should no longer be the world’s policeman was a signal that European security would no longer be automatically guaranteed by Washington.
What once stood as a strategic priority akin to the Monroe Doctrine in its time no longer holds the same place. The U.S. is leaving Europe to face its own responsibilities, telling the EU and its leaders plainly: do not rely on me anymore; you must protect your own security on the continent.
At first glance, there may be a certain logic to this. Trump says this is what his electorate demands that he focus directly on American national interests. At the same time, the U.S. has assumed a strategic role in ensuring global security and the continuity of democratic societies.
When Russia launched its full-scale war in Ukraine, was it really just a war about Ukraine? In fact, Europe is fighting Russia in Ukraine. This battle, in hybrid form, is spread across Europe, and Europeans are increasingly seeing this war on their own territory.
Merz said a few days ago that Putin is trying to restore the Soviet Union and will not stop at Ukraine. European leaders openly speak about the threat. What emerges from these positions?
Europe is alone today. Even in the negotiations on a ceasefire, it became clear that the U.S. would intervene if Ukraine were attacked again something that was encouraging for Europe. This suggests that America has not entirely abandoned European security.
Previously, the U.S. was the main thorn in Russia’s side when the war against Ukraine began. Russia knew well that the Western camp was not well prepared; it had studied Western weaknesses thoroughly and had been preparing for this war for a long time.
After the Biden administration, Trump’s administration is sending messages so aligned with Russia that it can be said to be helping Russia in its struggle against Europe. The U.S. is not only telling Europe it will no longer help, but is also weakening it almost calling for the disintegration of the EU and supporting radical opposition parties whose goal is to pull countries out of the Union.
In France, Austria, Hungary, Italy everywhere eurosceptic parties exist, America expresses sympathy toward them.
How do these parties view Trump?
Interestingly, they are quite cautious. Openly distancing themselves from Europe would undermine internal European solidarity. Of course, they do not reject Trump’s support it benefits them that the most powerful actor in the world endorses their political ideas.
However, even they realize that Russia is the main threat to Europe. They now see Russia differently. Where it was once considered a kind of ally, today they see that Russia uses every means including hybrid methods to weaken Europe.
For Russia, Europe is the primary target today. America is no longer Russia’s main enemy; Russia almost perceives it as an ally. Weakening NATO is Russia’s key objective, and Trump, through his skepticism and criticism, weakens the alliance because Russia sees that European security is no longer a strategic priority for Washington.
Europe is no longer the strategic theater of U.S. action and interests. The strategic center has shifted to the Indo-Pacific region, especially amid China’s rise. America is focusing on China to prevent it from becoming its number-one enemy.
The U.S. does not consider Russia a primary enemy, as it does not see it as a serious rival. Given the vast economic disparity, the U.S. believes it could deal with Russia quickly if necessary.
Trump proposed NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine. What does this indicate?
This is why I say Europe has not lost all hope.
If there is anything positive here, it is that Europe is being forced to ensure its own security. As you mentioned, in recent negotiations the U.S. stated it would intervene if its interests were threatened.
What kind of restructuring has begun in Europe following Trump’s criticism?
Europe has begun discussing strategic defense and strategic autonomy. There was always doubt about relying entirely on the U.S., especially in France.
I know France better than other EU countries. Charles de Gaulle was always cautious about American assistance. From the acceptance of the Marshall Plan onward, he maintained France’s autonomous strategy and sovereignty, believing one never knows what America’s national interest might be tomorrow.
Thus, he valued friendship but tried not to be so dependent that national interests hinged on the fragility of that relationship.
Can the U.S. maintain leadership without being an active ally of Europe?
The reality is that the U.S. is reducing its foreign commitments to adapt to a multipolar world, while Europe must take care of its own defense.
Previously, Europe felt comfortable under NATO’s shadow: “If needed, NATO will protect us.” Today, security has become an urgent issue for Europe. Trump’s stance showed that even within NATO, the U.S. might not intervene even if war is on the European continent.
This may be intended to wake Europe up. Trump views politics like business. I still feel some optimism: during Trump’s campaign I said he was turning the political order upside down, speaking that way to voters but I thought once elected, national interests would prevail.
Instead, this process has normalized authoritarianism through ideological relativism. We often hear: “Why are you surprised? Isn’t Trump saying the same thing?”
Leaders of “Georgian Dream” frequently echo Trump’s statements when criticizing Europe.
There is a certain logic to this. You demand democratic standards and rule of law, yet the country that once guaranteed democratic institutions globally now questions them itself.
This leads to the erosion of America’s normative leadership.
It is no longer a benchmark when it adopts laws that raise serious questions. One understands electoral promises, but this reflects an inability to uphold democratic values.
Paradoxically, the U.S. is weakening the very international environment and democratic system into which it invested billions over decades to protect Western civilization and value-based societies.
This realization leads one to expect growing instability, increasing competition among major powers, fragmentation of international rules, and devaluation of norms that once governed state behavior.
Russia long criticized as unpredictable is now, in effect, finding a form of legitimacy.
Can Europe become a strong geopolitical actor without the U.S.?
Trump’s America no longer being a democratic role model should not mean Europe abandons its natural mission to remain faithful to Western values. Along with ensuring security, Europe must fully protect its democratic achievements.
I would not say “liberal,” as liberalism itself has been reassessed. Its excesses exhausted American society and were exploited by the conservative wing.
Trump’s presidency and the crisis of the international order accelerated its collapse, fostering a more conflictual world. For Europe, this creates an obligation not just a goal to regroup.
Against the threat of strategic abandonment, Europe must seize the historic opportunity to become a full-fledged security actor.
How consistent is Europe in this process, and can Ukraine rely on sustained European support?
Europe faced multiple challenges at once: abandonment by the U.S. when it needed support most, and fighting Russia on Ukrainian territory.
Today, Ukraine is not just fighting Europe is fighting Russia as an evil force. America seems to have stepped aside: “This is your continent; deal with it yourselves.”
Still, we should not lose all hope. The U.S. does not want Russia to win. That would be a victory not just over Ukraine or Europe, but over Western values themselves making Russia a rule-setter. That would not suit the U.S.
Despite no longer being an EU member, the UK is one of the most advanced actors in this regrouping. Britain has never lost a war to Russia.
Countries that lost to Russia carry a deep, historical fear. This psychological déjà vu shapes criticism of leaders: “Are you joking with Russia? Do you want Russian soldiers here?”
France remembers this history too. Time has not erased it.
Britain and the U.S. historically acted boldly because they lacked this fear. Today, Britain still makes the boldest statements.
France shows a break from its traditional Gaullist autonomy. Under Chirac, France opposed the Iraq invasion maintaining independent judgment later proven correct.
French leadership understands Europe’s condition and France’s founding role. Macron believes Europe’s survival depends on active support for Ukraine. Hence his statement that troops might be sent at great political cost.
Now similar statements are emerging from other leaders.
A French general recently said France must prepare for war with Russia within 3-4 years. Though symbolic, it was a calculated statement based on political and military analysis, intended to prepare the public.
Russia’s intention to weaken Europe is clear. Putin denies plans to attack Europe, just as he once denied plans for Ukraine.
France proposes a nuclear umbrella for EU states. Germany is rebuilding its army. Poland and the Baltic states are highly active.
Internal consensus remains fragile across Europe. Still, despite Macron’s low approval ratings, 62% of French citizens view Russia as the main threat an important indicator of public readiness.
France has increased exports, provided over €40 billion in aid to Ukraine without parliamentary approval, and Macron is taking risks, believing swift action is essential.
Finally, what about Georgia? Can it remain on Europe’s political agenda?
The loyalty of Georgia’s population is crucial, demonstrated for over a year on Rustaveli Avenue.
The fact that many Georgians remain committed to European values gives hope to the EU. Europe’s fate is partly being decided in Tbilisi. Russian influence in Georgia weakens Europe.
Europe has no personal vendetta against Georgia’s government, but as a candidate country, trust matters. Recent laws and trends erode that trust.
Europe is in a difficult period. If friends step away now, Europe will still rise but it will remember who stood by it and who did not.
Georgia is in turbulent waters. It is small and struggles against strong waves. Its political leadership chose the calmer current, only to find the boat drifting back to a familiar shore one that promises nothing good for Georgia.