United States

There were differences between the US and Europe, especially at the outset. The US was proactive and assertive, with senior US officials making high-profile visits to the Maidan during the demonstrations and the US bringing pressure to bear for tough sanctions soon after the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The EU was more cautious and divided. But as the crisis continued, there was a significant transatlantic convergence on what needed to be done. The sanctions were broadened from targeting individuals to limiting technology transfers and denying market access to Russian firms. The EU, and especially Germany, began to take on a leadership role in the alliance’s response to the crisis, and this was welcomed by the US.

There was also mutual recognition of the broader challenge that Russia poses to the European security order, with Europe and the US working together to address it. Washington shared the concern of the eastern EU states that Russia would employ hybrid warfare against a NATO member state – presumably one of the Baltic states – to test the Article V commitment. New NATO exercises followed, as well as consultations with European member states to bolster the conventional deterrent. And US diplomats increased their engagement in Central and Eastern Europe to push back against forces promoting “illiberal democracy” and democratic backsliding.

By the end of the year, the sanctions were having a major impact on the Russian economy, especially when compounded by the fall in the price of oil. EU and US leaders said that they hoped the damage would cause Vladimir Putin to reverse course, but few expected this to happen. This fed into a more general concern, on both sides of the Atlantic, about the prospect of a new Cold War and the absence of a strategy to avoid it. President Barack Obama’s administration launched a review of Russia policy but Putin’s centrality in Russian decision-making was seen as a significant impediment to progress. Compartmentalisation – whereby cooperation with Russia is preserved on non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, and other issues – is seen as part of the solution; however, it may not be sustainable.

Russia was not the only issue in transatlantic relations. The rapid rise of ISIS in Syria and Northern Iraq contributed to a perception that the regional order in the Middle East is unravelling. European and US cooperation on the Middle East has been less well managed than cooperation on Russia and Ukraine. Responding to this challenge is complex and it is unclear whether any strategy could have resolved the situation cleanly in 2014. Nevertheless, the ad hoc US response, after the fall of Mosul and the beheading of two Americans, has been unilateral (as was that of the EU states that chose to intervene nationally) and was largely tailored to domestic political constraints. Regardless, the US has increased its engagement in the region significantly.

Matters are not helped by the fact that Europe is divided as to what approach to take in the region, notably towards Egypt and the Gulf Arab states. Five European nations joined the US-led anti-ISIS coalition in operations in Iraq (but not Syria), while others worried that a new war in the Middle East could lead to terrorist attacks at home.

More generally, 2014 was a year in which other initiatives and problems moved along slowly, without much drama relative to what had gone before. The year 2013 was one of contrasts: it saw successes such as the launch of the TTIP and the interim agreement with Iran, as well as failures such as the Snowden crisis and the Syria debacle. When it came to assigning an overall grade to EU relations with the US, this unusual mix of success and failure essentially cancelled itself out. In 2014 Europe and the US avoided major failures but were also unable to build on some of the breakthroughs of the previous years. On these issues, there was a reversion toward the mean.

The crises of 2013 abated a little. The Snowden revelations continue to rankle and there was a new spy crisis with Germany, but the US made progress in addressing some of Europe’s concerns, for example, by suspending spying operations in allied countries. The rise of ISIS and the threat of foreign fighters have also changed the context in which the Snowden revelations are discussed.

Transatlantic diplomatic initiatives have run into difficulty. The TTIP negotiations have not progressed as quickly as many would like. Several problems emerged, especially over the standardisation of regulations and investor protection provisions. The political headwinds are strong, as populists, especially in Europe, campaign against a deal. Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic will have to make a more forceful case for TTIP in 2015.

On the Iranian nuclear programme, the E3+3 were unable to reach a deal with Iran by the deadline of 25 November 2014 and talks were extended for seven months. The EU and the Obama administration remained unified throughout the process, but the US is sharply

divided on Iran along partisan lines, and the Republican-controlled Congress could yet pass new sanctions that derail the negotiations.

There were also disappointments. The US-led Israel-Palestine peace talks, for which Europe had pressed, fell apart, and transatlantic divisions re-emerged, although divergences were more limited than they have been on many occasions in the past. In October, Sweden recognised Palestine as a state and, by the end of the year, the European Parliament and five other EU states had also passed some form of recognition.

Overall, though, 2014 will be remembered in transatlantic relations as a turning point for European security, when Russia re-emerged as a significant geopolitical challenge.