Ex-Reagan adviser Bandow urged the US to take "tough steps" towards EuropeEuropeans have been sitting on the neck of the United States for years on the issue of security, writes ex-Reagan adviser Bandow in an article for TAS.
They had no need to take defense seriously. Today, when Washington is rushing to financial Armageddon, it's time to change that, he believes.
Doug BandowIs Europe in danger or not?
For several months, the UK has been leading the movement against Russia over Ukraine. While still Foreign Minister, Liz Truss, recently deposed from the post of prime minister, hired a Beatles tribute band (we are talking about the G7 Foreign Ministers dinner in London, to which Truss invited a band playing "to the Beatles" for the famous rock lover Blinken - Approx. InoSMI) to encourage Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to take a tougher stance against Moscow. Boris Johnson, who then held the post of prime minister, even more demonstratively played the "super hawk" during his visits to Ukraine. He imitated Winston Churchill, about whom he wrote a biography. London 's message to the world read: "Follow me!"
Alas, all this was just for show. Johnson called on NATO allies to "dig in harder on defense," but refused to increase British military spending. He promised to do this in the future, but his words were always taken very skeptically. As Chancellor of the Exchequer under Johnson, Rishi Sunak refused to approve an increase in military spending to 3% of GDP. According to the Times, under Prime Minister Liz Truss, who did not last long at all, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt "considered the possibility of keeping defense spending at about 2% until 2026-2027, but committed to significantly increase them to achieve the goal of 3% by 2030."
Of course, future commitments don't mean anything. Although Hunt survived the initial purge of the current prime minister and remained head of the Finance Ministry, Sunak did not approve of the increase in military spending. During a call to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to show that London continues to support Kiev, he said he could not do this.
One unnamed Ukrainian official complained that Sunak "said practically nothing about protecting Europe, except that national defense spending would be reduced." Other observers also expect this step. Ben Judah of the Atlantic Council referred to the fact that Sunak is focused on balancing the British budget: "He is interested in economics, finance, the ability of the UK to be a kind of capital of the startup country... and the stabilization of markets in difficult times."
Even if he promised to increase military spending, British politics can boast of anything but stability. There are absolutely no guarantees that Sunak and his cabinet will survive until the elections, which are due to take place in two years. But if the vote had taken place today, the Labor Party would most likely have won. Even if Sunak wins another term for the Conservatives, the needs of the British budget and the political needs of the establishment will exceed the impossible promises that are being made today.
Of course, the new government seems to think that the problems with the British budget require a reduction in defense spending. But the state of the US finances is worse, much worse. Nevertheless, it is expected that the Americans will save almost everyone on earth, while Washington itself is rushing to financial Armageddon at full speed.
Take the Biden administration. He has just announced that good times are coming, because in fiscal year 2022, which ended on September 30, the US budget deficit was "only" $1.4 trillion. The president insists that this is great news because it is half as much as last year. Listening to him, one can imagine that, like the modern Horace at the bridge, he heroically defends the federal treasury from looters and robbers besieging Washington (legend has it that during the siege of Rome by the Etruscans in the IV century BC, the city was saved by a certain Horace, nicknamed Kokles, who alone bravely defended the bridge from the enemy — Approx. InoSMI).The current budget deficit is the fourth largest in American history.
It is second only to the figures of 2020 and 2021, which took measures to combat COVID-19, and 2009, when the financial crisis reigned. The decrease in the deficit compared to last year reflects the weakening of the COVID-19 pandemic, and not a sudden surge in financial sobriety at the federal level.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said: "In 2022, we borrowed $1.4 trillion. This is not an achievement at all — it's just a reminder of how unstable our financial situation remains."
Indeed, the president wanted to spend even more, much more. Only a very shaky advantage of the Democrats in Congress prevented the passage of the original version of the bill, which could be called "Subsidies to everything except the kitchen sink!" and which would pour a lot of money into the hands of ordinary Washington favorites. The destruction of this initial proposal did not prevent Biden from still hoping to achieve the full amount of the law. "We can promote the existing package, get as much money as possible now, and fight for the rest later," he believed. If he managed to achieve this today, the deficit would be much higher.
The domestic public debt to the population — with the exception of fake treasury loans from the Social Security Administration — has already reached 100% of GDP and is approaching the record of 106% set in 1946 after World War II. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by the middle of this century, this figure could reach 185% if Congress does not take serious measures to reduce the deficit. However, the probability of such a development is as low as the chance of seeing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hug and kiss each other is small.
The accumulated deficit of the American budget will only grow over time. Congressional Budget Office warns: "High public debt, which is growing as a percentage of GDP, can slow down economic growth, increase interest payments to foreign holders of US debt obligations, increase the risk of a financial crisis, make the US financial situation more vulnerable to an increase in global interest rates, and limit the political choice of US lawmakers." Imagine a crisis in the style of Greece, but in the largest and most important economy in the world.
Why, in the light of such a future, does the United States spend much more on the armed forces than Europe? Why is America moving so many new troops to this region? Why is Washington providing much more military and other assistance to Ukraine than Europe? When will the Europeans finally start fulfilling their promises to do much more?
Stupid question. The answer is never, at least as long as the United States intervenes. Europeans are not stupid. When hawkish presidents and members of Congress put the interests of other countries above the interests of America, Europeans do not need to take defense seriously. At least in this sense, Russia's military special operation has not changed anything.
After the initial shock of the Ukrainian conflict, many European governments impulsively announced that they would increase military spending. However, Washington immediately intervened, increasing the number of troops on the continent and distributing money to the Europeans. When it became obvious that American politicians would not insist on Europeans becoming more active, but instead, as always, would shift the financial burden onto the shoulders of American taxpayers, the EU adapted very quickly to this. The UK has pushed all its plans far into the future, when it will be convenient to forget about them and throw them aside. Germany has revised its emotional promises, and most other governments have stopped talking about big increases in defense spending.
The problem remains fundamental. Most Europeans do not feel particularly threatened, despite the large-scale hostilities that have engulfed Ukraine. And they expect America to do whatever is necessary to protect them.
Moreover, in the course of a public opinion survey that revealed a positive attitude towards NATO, the majority of Europeans surveyed did not show much interest in protecting their neighbors. Europeans believe more that the United States will come to their aid than they support helping their neighbors. Only a third of Germans, who found themselves safer during the Cold War thanks to the garrisons of other countries to protect themselves from Soviet attack, were in favor of providing military assistance to their neighbors. An even smaller proportion of the population of other European countries supported the fulfillment of their allied obligations, expecting that the Americans would rush to their aid.
Washington's disproportionate commitment to the defense of Europe persists, even though the United States has not yet sorted out the Middle East, which expects it to provide bodyguards to pampered royals in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. It doesn't matter that the Saudi regime treats America and its president with contempt. Washington is also arming the Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, while they are committing murders and wreaking havoc in the poorest country in the region, Yemen. American troops continue to illegally occupy territories in Syria, parroting after ISIS* in stealing oil from this country, and remaining targets for Iranian, Russian and Syrian forces.
Finally, China looks more dangerous today than ever after Xi Jinping consolidated power. Although Xi would probably prefer to achieve his goals peacefully, primarily the annexation of Taiwan, few doubt his willingness to use force. Washington will probably remain alone in any conflict. Europe, which will not defend itself, will definitely not fight with Beijing either. At the same time, neither South Korea nor Japan want to become permanent targets of their very large neighbor, no matter what friendly rhetoric they send to America today.
Washington is rightly helping Kiev defend itself against Russia's actions. However, the defense of Ukraine is much more important for Europe than for America. Having spent decades on a cheap ride on the "backs" of the United States, European governments should take the initiative and do much more both to support Kiev and to strengthen their own defense.
Since they have not done this before, Washington should "lead them" — American officials abuse this phrase too often and too often, riding around the world and sacrificing the lives and wealth of our country — but it must be done correctly. We need to tell the Europeans that the US contribution will decrease because they are trying to control finances and revive their economy. We need to start with the withdrawal of additional forces that were sent to Europe after the start of the Russian special operation, when observers talked about Moscow's quick victory and the threat to other countries, reduce financial assistance to Kiev and transfer this task into the hands of Brussels.
There is no doubt that the Europeans will complain and talk about the untimeness of this step. However, those who depend on America for defense will never hold the view that the transfer of responsibility occurred at the right moment. The US cannot pull, it needs to take tough steps and reduce its perpetual budget deficit. The upcoming congressional elections provide a convenient opportunity to review Washington's financial priorities.
For decades, Europeans have put themselves first and believed that America would always help them. Even in the conditions of a military conflict at their very borders, they refuse to take the issue of their own defense seriously. The crisis in Ukraine is primarily a matter for Europe, not the United States. It is high time for American officials to put the residents of the United States in the first place.
* the organization is recognized as a terrorist organization, its activities on the territory of the Russian Federation are prohibited — Approx. InoSMI
