Specialist in American foreign policy, Maud Quessard is director of the "Europe, Transatlantic Space, Russia" section at the Institut de recherche stratégique de l'École militaire (IRSEM). Her research focuses on American strategic issues and power competitions, as well as information wars and influence strategies.
A doctor at Sorbonne-Nouvelle University and a graduate of Sciences Po, she has taught at the University of Poitiers, Paris 2-Panthéon Assas, IEP Bordeaux and Sciences Po Paris. She has benefited from the IHEDN's research support programme, has been visiting fellow in the History Department at Harvard University in 2015, then winner in 2023 of the Programme International Visitor Leadership Program of the US State Department.
SHOULD CANADA, GREENLAND/DENMARK OR PANAMA (WITH ITS CANAL) WORRY ABOUT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S STATEMENTS BEFORE HIS INAUGURATION?
Above all, these three countries must be worried about the maximum pressure that Trump intends to put on them, with the aim of securing his country's economic interests as effectively as possible.
His thunderous declarations at the beginning of January may seem surprising from a European point of view, but it should be noted that they are part of an imperialist, expansionist and even maximalist lineage that has its roots in American history. I'm thinking in particular of President Theodore Roosevelt (in power from 1901 to 1909), who was portrayed as a strong man. This speaks to the American public, to whom these speeches are primarily addressed. Donald Trump wants to be part of this long history of American hegemony.
In this context, the economic interests of these three countries will be under particular strain. We saw what he announced in November concerning an increase in customs tariffs with Canada.
"THIS IS PART OF A NARRATIVE AIMED AT COMPETING WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA".
As far as Greenland is concerned, Trump and his administration are very interested in the rare earths found in this country, which is part of Denmark.
His statements on Panama, on the other hand, are addressed directly to the Chinese competitor, for whom the canal is a crucial trade route.
All this is part of a grand narrative that aims to rival the United States' two strategic competitors: Russia and China. American influence in its traditional sphere, Latin America, is being severely challenged by these two countries.
Finally, from a rhetorical point of view, we need to understand that what Trump is criticised for, his famous slogan "Make America Great Again", would not be coherent if he did not concretely embark on an expansionist policy.
WHAT ABOUT ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH "BIG TECH"? WHEN MARK ZUCKERBERG ANNOUNCES A REDUCTION IN THE MODERATION OF META NETWORKS, OR WHEN ELON MUSK INTERVENES IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY, ARE THEY ACTING AS "PROXIES" FOR DONALD TRUMP?
This is the case for Elon Musk, but not necessarily for Mark Zuckerberg.
For Zuckerberg, the idea is to rally behind Trump in order to save his platform, and to enter the new president's fold, like Musk and all the big tech bosses, in order to have a say over international institutions such as the European Union that could threaten their groups. This is the main objective of Zuckerberg, who is no longer the Facebook creator of the 2000s and 2010s who was close to the Democrats. It's a change of foot, an ideological change. Meta's directors are no longer Californian "woke", they are techno-nationalists, like Elon Musk. Business comes first: Facebook and X don't have very successful business models, their profitability fluctuates wildly.
For his part, Elon Musk is certainly acting as a proxy for Donald Trump, but above all as a proxy for himself. He is criticised for being techno-nationalist, but even the Biden administration was, in the current context of crucial, even cruel, economic rivalry.
"TECH TOOLS FIRST AND FOREMOST SERVE THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF TECH".
Musk supports Trump's international brand of white nationalism, and is striving to create a genuine "international" around these ideas. But the tools of tech are first and foremost there to serve the economic interests of tech.
The next move will be interesting to watch: what Musk will do about his own interests in China. If he wants to agree with Trump's tough stance on China, this could threaten his factories there.
What we can say for the moment is what the American election campaign has shown: financial power is now in the hands of Musk and his supporters. It is not in Trump's interest to go against it.
ARE NATO COUNTRIES PREPARED TO INCREASE THEIR DEFENCE BUDGET TO 5% OF GDP, AS DONALD TRUMP IS CALLING FOR? IF NOT, CAN WE FEAR AN AMERICAN DISENGAGEMENT FROM THE ALLIANCE, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACE OF RUSSIA?
What is worrying is that Europeans are not ready for this issue. There is still no uniform voice in Europe on how to respond to this request for an increase.
When we look at the budgetary situation in a number of countries, what is to be feared is, once again, the maximum pressure that Donald Trump is going to put on them. If the Europeans don't go along with him on this budget request, Trump will try to negotiate something else, such as being the sole master of NATO, or getting them to accept certain aspects of the negotiations carried out by the United States. But Trump is not yet very clear on this.
Between Russia and Ukraine, the possibility of a frozen conflict for some time cannot be ruled out, even if candidate Trump has said he wants to settle it in 24 hours. As President, once he is in the Oval Office, he still has a few advisers whom he listens to to a greater or lesser extent. With these new advisers chosen long ago, from techno-nationalist or religious right backgrounds, it remains to be seen what he will actually do.
"TRUMP'S AIM IS TO DIVIDE EUROPEANS".
Donald Trump has already backtracked on certain points in the past. Here, we are still in the process of constructing his hegemonic narrative. Through this strategic communication, his primary objective is to exert maximum pressure. It may seem surprising to talk about strategic communication when talking about Donald Trump, but this is not the case: Ronald Reagan (President from 1981 to 1989) was known as "the communicator in chief", and today Trump gives the impression that he is following in his footsteps.
On the European side, the pity is that nothing has been prepared. Trump's aim is to divide the Europeans, not necessarily within NATO, but within the European Union itself.
If Trump and Musk push for dissent in Europe, what is to be feared is a strengthening of the discourse of leaders who are pushing for less EU. Dissent creates information jamming, which certainly allows everyone to work behind the scenes, but above all allows Trump to occupy the media field worldwide.
The number one threat to the United States is China, not Russia. Putin is not an enemy to be destroyed, he is simply a strategic competitor.
In Europe, in our paradigm, we tend to forget how certain empires were built: Vladimir Putin is an imperialist, Xi Jinping too, so why shouldn't Donald Trump be?
To find out more: https://www.irsem.fr/equipe/quessard.html
