Donald Trump’s hyperbolic threat to sic Russia on our NATO allies who fail to spend enough on defense prompted the usual screeching and rending of garments by security analysts on both sides of the Atlantic. Almost in unison they argued that the North Atlantic alliance is not a crass transactional arrangement, but one based on political solidarity derived from a collective vision, something a boorish real estate developer can’t hope to understand. But our experts then neglected to define exactly what this important collective vision at the heart of the alliance is. We shouldn’t be surprised at this omission, as it conveniently elides the many ways our allies actively undermine this solidarity.
Saving Ukraine from Russia’s coming summer offensive should be Europe’s overriding goal right now.
German Chancellor Scholz plans another business trip to China, where he will bend the knee to President Xi in the hopes of protecting German export markets. The fact that China is the most important external supporter of Russian savagery in Ukraine and Iran’s proxy wars in the Middle East is apparently less important than maintaining Volkswagen’s quarterly sales targets. Turkish President Erdogan wishes to impose a peace deal on Ukraine that would legitimize Russian territorial gains and block Kiev’s accession to NATO until 2040, in exchange for solemn Kremlin pledges of “non-interference” in Ukrainian affairs. Giving Putin a clear victory apparently serves the higher cause of elevating Erdogan’s profile as a world statesman.
Our Hungarian and Slovakian allies function as Putin proxies in deliberations within both NATO and the EU. Ukrainian membership in one or both organizations should be subject to honest debate, not vetoes from putative allies keen on currying favor with Moscow. German and French plans to spend more on advanced tanks and combat aircraft are mired in intramural disputes between competing national manufacturers and conflicting export policies. The upshot being that Europe will not be fielding next generation hardware before 2040 at best. Is this what the U.S. gets for shouldering the lion’s share of European defense needs? (READ MORE from Karl Pfefferkorn: Surging Debt Threatens US Status as Dominant World Power)
One does not need to be a fire-breathing nativist to ask if NATO is still serving American interests. The standard argument among our DC security elites is that we spend more defending Europe than Europe spends defending itself because we are thereby leading the world’s greatest military alliance. But if American leadership cannot assume alliance solidarity with our own national security objectives, is this in fact money well spent? One can compare the current suboptimal situation to an ideal alliance in which Europe would take over more of the cost of its own defense and all of the cost of protecting Ukraine, allowing the U.S. to focus on deterring Chinese aggression in the Pacific. For a modest fraction of what we devote to European defense, we could transform the Filipino navy into a force China will respect. Would China dare turn its fire hoses on Filipino ships protected by a fleet of advanced diesel electric subs, land-based patrol aircraft, and ships capable of unleashing lethal drone swarms?
Taiwan clearly needs our help in convincing China that it will become a well-armed hedgehog island capable of thwarting a cross-straits invasion. Vietnam remains a one-party state, but one that shares our fears of Chinese aggression. Again, help in financing the purchase of a modest fleet of advanced diesel electric subs from our German or Japanese allies would give Chinese naval planners fits and could help stabilize the balance of power in the South China Sea. All of these strategic objectives are within our reach if we can free up defense spending now devoted to Europe. In an era of trillion dollar deficits, we don’t have the money to do both.
If NATO is to function as a true alliance rather than a convenient invitation for wealthy Europeans to snuggle securely behind our military, we need our allies to demonstrate solidarity with our shared global interests. Nothing would defuse the ongoing debate on Capitol Hill over funding for Ukraine faster than a genuine European commitment to assume the lead in providing Kiev with the funds, weaponry, and perhaps even the troops needed to stave off continued Russian aggression. The U.S. would remain the nuclear guarantor of NATO but Europe, working through both the EU and NATO, should become the primary sponsor of Ukraine. Our European allies have the industrial capacity to provide all that Ukraine needs to prevail in its war with Russia. Recall that the collective economy of our European allies is roughly nine times the size of Russia’s, and possessed of all the high tech equipment and manufacturing processes currently denied Russian industry. There is no economic or industrial reason for Europe not to take the reins on Ukraine.
Instead of developing meaningful strategic solidarity with the United States, Europe indulges in counterproductive vanity projects seemingly designed to appeal to excitable university students. Europe is sitting on 700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and could be self-sufficient for fifty years if it employed extraction practices common in West Texas. Instead, many European states have banned fracking technology outright and the Dutch government has closed continental Europe’s largest gas field off Groningen because of occasional earth tremors. This was a costless virtue signal as long as cheap Russian gas extracted in god knows what manner was flowing into Europe.
But now German industry is crippled by high electricity prices because of expensive liquified natural gas imports, coupled with the precipitous closure of the country’s remaining nuclear power plants. Despite its declared green ambitions, Germany now depends more on dirty lignite coal to backstop the wild variations in the electricity production of its extensive wind turbine fleet. The financial burden of achieving the EU’s Net Zero goal in the next fifteen years is a direct fiscal threat to the military spending Europe needs to become an equal partner in European defense with the United States.
Saving Ukraine from Russia’s coming summer offensive should be Europe’s overriding goal right now. But the EU’s governing council prefers to devote endless discussion to the conflict in Gaza, where the EU has exactly no influence over the warring parties. Neurotic narcissism appears to be the primary unifying feature of top level EU policy-making, with fierce deterrence reserved exclusively for seeing off the dastardly threat posed by Amazon, Google, and Facebook.
Might the threat of a second Trump administration jolt the Europeans into taking on more of the strategic burden of defending free societies from authoritarian predators around the world? It may be pretty to think so, but the history of Trump’s first term suggests it will not. While the Trump presidency did prompt a modest increase in European defense budgets, any plan to supplant U.S. commitments to European defense foundered over widespread animosity to Trump himself. Donald Trump was regarded as simply “unclubbable” by Europe’s political grandees, who made an art form of the opaque statements and body language meant to show their constituents that behind the diplomatic niceties they too shared an unabiding loathing for the man. (READ MORE: NeoCons Awake, Europe Needs You!)
Europe has had nearly eight full years to Trump-proof the NATO alliance by becoming a global partner to the United States. Instead we see Germany still mistaking her exports for strategy, France still talking a big game with little actual military commitment, and smaller powers like Hungary actively courting Europe’s premiere predatory state. Aside from the Poles, the UK and the Baltic states, Europe has failed to develop a mature strategic culture complementing the needs of its most important security partner. Have they earned anything less than a threat to withdraw America’s military protection?
