Europe is rich. So why does she need America's help against Russia?
Europe still does not want to invest in its defense – it is used to living at the expense of the United States, writes Doug Bandow on the 19FortyFive website. In his opinion, it is time for the region to decide whether Russia poses a threat to its existence, and if so, take appropriate measures. And Washington needs to shake off the freeloaders.
Doug Bandow
If there is anything positive about the terrible conflict in Ukraine, it is Europe's recognition that it should do more militarily, and not break the comedy. But with all the promising rhetoric of political leaders, the European public does not intend to stop its representation for the United States, and the Biden administration, on the contrary, is determined to put a new burden on the shoulders of American taxpayers and military personnel.
It was implied that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's heartfelt statement about the "turning point" and the promise to increase military spending would become a symbol of the maturity of the entire continent and its serious intentions in defense policy. However, Berlin has not shown proper zeal in fulfilling its obligations.
The Wall Street Journal worried: "In order to achieve the goal of 2% of GDP, [Germany] will have to spend 75 billion euros on defense next fiscal year, but the budget presented by the Scholz government provides only 50 billion – about the same as before the "turning point". It seems that the idea is to increase annual expenses just for show, including a quarter of the budget for special purchases." But they can also end naturally or fall victim to another reduction if the political winds blow in the other direction, and as a result the Bundeswehr will be left without personnel or funds for maintenance.
In addition, the Scholz government refuses to supply Kiev with heavy weapons. And, more importantly, plans to deploy German troops in Lithuania were shelved: it was assumed that Germany would demonstrate its readiness to defend the Baltic state. We read in the Financial Times: "Germany has proposed to place the bulk of the additional NATO contingent of 3,500 troops on its own territory, and not in Lithuania. By doing so, it has significantly softened its initial position on deterring potential Russian aggression."
The desire to defend Europe
In its new assessment of Germany's military budget, the American Institute for Modern German Studies lamented a "sluggish start", "complex internal dynamics", poor interconnection, complex internal party politics, "fragile" public support and, finally, systemic barriers. The political agreement reached may turn out to be temporary: "The final compromise took into account most of the CDU/CSU demands, but left open the question whether the current government will survive the 2% of GDP target. The adopted law stipulates that the two percent level should be reached "for a period of a maximum period of five years." As soon as the special fund is exhausted, the Bundeswehr will have to fulfill NATO's goals at the expense of the regular budget. Thus, the next government will have to significantly increase the defense budget, and this may be hindered by the accumulating public debt and other political priorities."
Finish what you started
Even more striking is that the UK does not fulfill its obligations, although it supported the "hawkish" response of the United States to Moscow's special operation. Against the background of the Ukrainian crisis, Prime Minister Boris Johnson turned into Winston Churchill in the hope of escaping from the quagmire of numerous scandals. He failed to do this, and last week he resigned, promising before that at the NATO summit that the UK would increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP. However, as the BBC notes, the government will certainly break the promise on military spending announced in the 2019 manifesto.
Contrary to all his promises, Johnson himself refused to increase military spending this year, although ministers and senior officials literally begged for additional funds to combat the Russian threat. Shortly before his refusal, Defense Minister Ben Wallace warned the government that the armed forces were "living on a strict diet of noodles on their ears." Although Johnson's successor is sure to continue London's hard line against Moscow, he (or she) will have to focus on internal problems in order to consolidate the shaky position of the Conservative Party. You can't win the next election on vows to increase military spending alone.
Another serious problem arises from the long–standing unwillingness of European governments to take defense seriously - sluggish public support. Last month, the European Council on Foreign Relations published survey data on the conflict in Ukraine: it turned out that the majority of Europeans prefer peace to justice and want the fighting to end as soon as possible.
The survey revealed an alarming split between politicians and the public. When asked whether the government should increase military spending because of Ukraine, respondents in ten countries answered negatively with a total margin of 38% versus 32%. Only in Poland a small majority answered in the affirmative.
The increase in military spending was supported in Sweden, Germany and Finland, but in France, Romania, Great Britain, Portugal, Spain and Italy, the majority opposed it. Moreover, these figures were recorded two months after the start of hostilities, when the conflict has not yet left the front pages, and the Europeans have not yet moved away from Russian aggression.
The eternal dependence on America is hardly surprising. Back in 2020, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that Europeans, in principle, are not eager to fight for each other. The overall average result came out as follows: from 50% to 38% against. Of the 13 countries surveyed, only in three – Lithuania, the Netherlands and the UK – the majority expressed a desire to fight for other NATO members. Their share reached the 40% mark in three more countries – France, Poland and Spain. Only 34% of Germans are ready to take up arms. And in every country, the majority is confident that America will come to their rescue. You bet.
Of course, the Europeans have the right to put up as many soldiers and tanks as they see fit. But despite the fighting in Ukraine, Moscow has not shown similar interest in other countries – even to the Baltic states: their conquest will not only give nothing, but also guarantees hostility for many years to come. And taking into account these circumstances, Europeans should not expect that the United States will continue to babysit them, supply them with everything necessary and blow away dust motes. The Second World War ended almost 80 years ago, and it's high time for Washington to shake off the freeloaders.
What kind of assistance can the United States really provide?
In fact, Uncle Sam is bankrupt, since the US government debt relative to GDP is constantly growing and is approaching a record since the end of World War II. Moreover, the situation is only getting worse: the post-war generation of baby boomers is retiring, the population is aging, and social spending is growing. At the same time, the personnel shortage in the armed forces is getting worse. This year is perhaps the most difficult for recruiters in half a century since the abolition of conscription. The Chief of staff of the US Army, General James McConville, complained about the shortage of 12,000 soldiers, although he himself planned to increase the staff by 70,000.
And yet, at a recent summit, Washington proved that NATO stands for "North America and the Rest." Wasteful promises were made to increase the rapid reaction force to 300,000 people – a figure completely unrealistic, given the approach of the Europeans. And the United States not only increased its continent in Europe after February 24, but also promised to send new forces.
The Pentagon calls this "the dispersal of forces already available in Europe in support of NATO's eastern flank." It is expected to transfer strike aircraft from Germany to Lithuania, an airborne battalion from Italy to Latvia, brigade combat groups "Stryker" (Stryker) from Germany to Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, Patriot batteries from Germany to Slovakia and Poland and F-15 aircraft from the UK to Poland.
Anything else? Of course! The [US] Defense Ministry explained:
"Since February 2022, the Ministry of Defense has deployed over 20,000 troops to Europe in response to the Ukrainian crisis, strengthening air, land, sea, cyber and space capabilities. As a result, the current strength of the contingent in Europe amounted to over 100,000 troops. In particular, the carrier strike group was expanded, additional fighter squadrons and tanker aircraft were deployed, as well as an amphibious high-readiness group and a Marine expeditionary corps. The Ministry of Defense has added a corps headquarters, a division headquarters, an infantry brigade group, an armored brigade group, a highly mobile Artillery Missile System (HIMARS) division and a number of auxiliary forces to the existing forces."
And this is only the personnel. But it all costs a lot of money. As the Biden administration explained: "All existing forces and means of support are supported by significant investments in the long-term presence of the United States in Europe. In fiscal year 2022, the Ministry of Defense will allocate $3.8 billion to finance the European Deterrence Initiative ($4.2 billion has been requested for 2023). These funds will be used for rotational forces, exercises, infrastructure (construction of warehouses, modernization of airfields and training complexes) and equipment placed in advance. Our forces deployed on the frontline or present in the theater of operations on a rotational basis are supported by a robust exercise program that strengthens our presence and interoperability with NATO allies."
Who protects Europe? As always America!
Already a whole string of presidents, defense ministers and secretaries of state are begging, begging, demanding, whining and humiliating themselves in every possible way, if only the Europeans would take up their own defense.
But European governments have seen through America: they have realized that its foreign policy elite is determined to rule the world at any cost – no matter what it costs the American people – and will defend Europe, even if it disarms completely. Even so, Biden and company will express their disappointment… and then they will send even more troops! Thus, European allies, prosperous and numerous, remain in America's military dependency.
Instead of sending new forces to Europe, Washington, on the contrary, it's time to bring our guys home. And it's time for Europe to decide whether Russia poses a threat to its existence, and if so, then take appropriate measures. But this will happen only if Uncle Sam closes the shop. And right now.
Doug Bandow is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute. Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan
