Reigning in Trump with a NATO-style counter tariff alliance

The Battle of Leipzig

Napoleon was decisively defeated in the Battle of Leipzig 213 years ago. In the decade prior, the French emperor had subdued much of continental Europe, controlling Spain, Italy, and much of the remains of the dissolved Holy Roman Empire. His troops had then marched into Moscow, only to find the city set on fire by the retreating Russians. The infamous Fire of Moscow left French troops exposed to the freezing Russian winter, and they incurred great losses in their ensuing retreat. Meanwhile, Prussia and Austria, who had previously been coerced into alliance with Napoleon, declared war, and in 1813, the combined forces of Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Austria defeated France at Leipzig.

Similarities to Trump

One can draw many comparisons between Trump and Napoleon. To begin with, within the political climate of their times, they both embody authoritarian and imperialist ideals. Their shared love for grandeur also makes it easy to imagine Trump enjoying a Napoleon-like self-crowning ceremony. Neither of them hesitated to slap their name onto anything within their grasp (e.g. Code Napoleon and Trump Tower). One could even detect some form of Napoleon complex in Trump’s response to comments about the size of his hands and other body parts.

This piece does not intend to look at these similarities in personality. Instead, something can be learnt from the Battle of Leipzig on how to counter the imperialist strategies exhibited by Trump and Napoleon alike. Much like the US is today’s global superpower, France was Europe’s military and economic powerhouse in the 18th century. Obviously, Trump’s administration has not used military power to conquer its neighbours the way that Napoleon did. However, the latest Greenland threat reveals that the US’s tariff policy is more than just a simple trade negotiation. By bullying countries into compliance, Trump is trying to achieve his imperialist goals. Given the complex supply chains of the 21st century, this almost seems like a logical new type of warfare amongst countries whose economies are as deeply integrated as the US and Europe. And, let’s not forget that Napoleon also used trade policies, like the continental blockade, to achieve his targets.

What does today’s Battle of Leipzig look like

Once the similarities between 1813 and 2026 are established, the lesson for tariff-targeted nations is comically straightforward: work together. Napoleon’s early successes in Europe are often attributed to his troops’ fast movements, enabling them to divide up opponents’ forces and take them on one by one. In 1805, for example, the French army quickly overran the Austrian army at Ulm before their Russian allies could arrive. Trump’s tariff strategy similarly managed to drive divisions between countries. Early in his second term, the world pitied Canada and Mexico as their economies were targeted with 25% tariffs. But many countries were also breathing with relief that they hadn’t become the target themselves. This changed with Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement. While the simultaneous announcement broke with the asynchrony of previous tariff proclamations, the heterogeneity of tariff rates meant that countries once again did not react in unison. While Europeans were outraged at the 20% tariff they were subjected to, they gleefully looked at the 34% that China had been subjected to and thus did not partake in any immediate retaliatory measures. The UK, at the same time, negotiated its very own trade deal with the US, hoping to benefit economically from having a lower tariff than the rest of Europe. Divide and conquer in action. If Europeans want a way out of their current Greenland crisis, they simply need to look at their own history and unite the world like Europe once united against Napoleon. Except they wouldn’t even need to unite the entire world. Canada, Mexico and the EU together make up more than half of all exports from the US. While the US economy is not as export-driven as that of some other countries, exports still generate 11% of US-American GDP, meaning joint counter-tariffs from the EU, Mexico and Canada would target significantly more than 5% of the US economy. In comparison, US exports from the EU make up 3% of European GDP. Coordinated action, even just by these three trade partners, would therefore be able to inflict noticeable damage on the US economy, something that counter-tariffs from individual players (even China or the EU) have been unable to achieve so far.

How this would work in practice

To coordinate a collective response like this, a new intergovernmental organisation is needed. A group of countries that commit to not using tariffs as a geopolitical measure. This may sound awfully similar to the purpose of an already existing body: the World Trade Organization (WTO). You may wonder what happened to the WTO since it hasn’t appeared in the news much recently, despite the onslaught of breached trade rules by the US government. The reason for this is that the US has essentially hijacked this body into irrelevance: since Trump’s first term in office, they have blocked the appointment of new judges to the Appellate body, meaning that WTO rulings against US trade policy cannot be enforced because the US appeals them, and their appeals cannot be heard. Since judges serve 4-year terms, the US strategy of blocking judges did not bear fruit until the end of Trump’s first term, potentially explaining why his tariff policy was more restrained back then. The dysfunctional WTO is now also blocking other countries from settling trade disputes and may thereby offer a potential birthplace for a new organisation: the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) allows countries to settle ongoing disputes without the Appellate Body. More than 50 countries, including all EU nations, China, Canada and Mexico, have joined it and have successfully settled disputes using this mechanism. This member list could function as a recruitment plan for the proposed new trade organisation. This new body could function much like the previous WTO with two main adjustments. Firstly, the consensus mechanism would need to be designed bulletproof to stop countries blocking its functionality, like the US is currently blocking the WTO’s Appellate Body. Recent advances in research on decentralised autonomous organisation may provide useful consensus mechanisms for this that could stop such an organisation from being manipulated from within. Secondly, this new organisation would have a NATO Article 5-style mechanism that interpreted a tariff threat against one member as a trade war declaration against all members. This would automatically invoke proportionate counter tariffs from all members and would therefore dissuade even disproportionally powerful players like the US from using their economic might for geopolitical causes. If “Liberation Day” were to happen again, for example, this new trade bloc would consider all the tariff rates that its member states had been subjected to and then, in unison, set a counter tariff at the highest rate. This would dissuade actors like Trump from enacting tariffs against the member states, instead focusing on non-members, which would in turn encourage those to become members.

The silver lining

Many Germans attribute the historic birthing of their nation to Napoleon’s conquest. Before 1800, most Germans identified themselves with their respective states (e.g. Saxon or Swabian). Being brutally subdued by their powerful neighbour gave Germans a common enemy and a reason to unite, slowly shifting their regional identities from regional to ‘German’. America’s turn on Europe may cause a similar watershed moment for the continent and finally create the ‘European identity’ it’s been longing for. This historic comparison should naturally be cause for caution, as France and Germany went on to fight four major wars over the following 150 years after the Battle of Leipzig. This is a powerful reminder that any reaction against Trump’s tariffs should always be reversible with the goal of admitting the US to the proposed trade organisation once its administration takes a different direction. The Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, Christopher Wylie, details in his book how social media was used to manipulate the electorate before major votes in Western democracies. He describes how the same dark actors meddled with the Trump election and the Brexit referendum, in both cases potentially funded by Russian sources. The current Greenland rift shows how much Western unity has suffered as a result of these two events. Meanwhile, Russian commentators have largely emboldened the US in their pursuit of Greenland. The person who most benefits from a feud across the Atlantic is Vladimir Putin. The EU should act decisively against Trump, and it should seek allies in doing so. But the long-term aim for the Transatlantic relationship should be inspired by today’s friendship between once belligerent Frenchmen and Prussians.