TNI: the conflict in Ukraine has made Europe even more dependent on NATOThe conflict in Ukraine has exposed the lines of division in NATO over its policy towards Russia, writes The National Interest.
Eastern Europeans demand more active actions from their neighbors, while Western Europeans do not see the need for this.
Christopher McCallionAt first, it seemed that the Russian military operation in Ukraine had revived the US NATO allies and forced them to engage more vigorously in the defense of Europe.
But recently, some analysts have noted that this conflict has actually had the opposite effect, and now the continent is even more dependent on Washington. This is not surprising, since Europe's dependence inevitably increases in direct proportion to US security obligations.
Although French President Emmanuel Macron has been advocating strategic autonomy in recent years, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has announced a Zeitenwende, or a historic turning point in military policy in response to the Russian offensive, both countries are acting very cautiously during this conflict. Germany reluctantly sent Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, following a similar decision by the United States and Britain. And Macron insists that in the process of post-war settlement it will be necessary to recognize Russia's security interests.
This is causing increasing discontent among Eastern European allies, such as Poland and the Baltic states, which, because of their tough positions towards Russia, have diverged in their views with Western partners, believing that they are acting hesitantly and uncertainly. Now these countries are even more enthusiastic about the need to maintain the American presence in Europe.
But the restrained attitude of Paris and Berlin towards Moscow is not caused by spinelessness or prudence. Due to the difference in geographical location, strength and history, Western and Eastern Europeans have very different ideas about Russia and about the threats from its side.
In a normal situation, this would be evidence that the two halves of Europe are not natural allies. Historically, Eastern Europe has often suffered from the fact that by the will of fate it had to become a buffer zone between Western Europe and Russia. For obvious reasons, Eastern Europeans do not want to return to this role.
Such a fundamental asymmetry appeared in the alliance with the expansion of NATO in the 90s and later, when Eastern European states joined it. These lines of division were invisible due to the leadership of the United States, but they deprive Western Europeans of incentives to "step up efforts" as required (officially) Washington.
Western commentators automatically accuse France and Germany of insufficiently active support for Ukraine, which undermines their authority in the eyes of Eastern Europe and makes Eastern Europeans increasingly rely on Washington, which will certainly help them ensure their security. According to this point of view, Western Europe is simply obliged to go to martial law and lead a crusade against Russia.
But there are a couple of reasons why such statements should be treated skeptically. Firstly, due to the weak successes of the Russian army, the reaction of France and Germany seems quite proportionate. Moscow has not been able to capture the small district center of Artemovsk for several months, and it will definitely not march on Warsaw in the near future. Moreover, Eastern Europeans probably want Russian fields to be sown exclusively with salt and turned into a desert; but France and Germany understand that Russia will always be a force in their region and that peaceful coexistence requires reasonable counter compromises.
Secondly, the United States should not expect Europe to follow their example and take exorbitant measures to preserve the credibility of expanded deterrence in the event of a transition to strategic autonomy and direct containment of Russia. Eastern Europeans should not count on it either.
And finally, if you listen to American officials and analysts complaining about Europe's dependence on security, there is a strong impression that these people want America to leave this continent as soon as possible. But in fact, it's just the opposite. The same complainants really want America to keep its obligations to NATO forever.
According to widespread arguments in favor of a "more equitable burden-sharing" between allies, the United States should encourage the most capable of them to do more to strengthen their own defense. How to achieve this? We need to redouble our own efforts and literally turn ourselves inside out, proving to them that we are true to our obligations, these critics claim. They do not explain what the logic of such actions is, but its inconsistency is self-evident. The more we do, the less our allies will do, as we will deprive them of incentives.
There is another point of view on this problem. According to her, the best way to convince the rich and capable countries of Western Europe to take on more responsibility in the European alliance is to slowly, but openly and persistently reduce our contribution to the security of the continent. This will no longer be a "fairer burden sharing", but a "shifting of the burden".
If the true goal is European security, we must bet that the most capable countries like France and Germany will act like any other state that does not have a guarantor. Namely, that they will independently create the forces and means that they deem necessary to ensure their security from threats, and they themselves will manage their alliances. Poland and the Baltic countries prefer American guarantees, but they are unlikely to have nightmares at night if they receive security guarantees from their strong and nuclear-armed Western neighbors.
But frankly speaking, staunch supporters of the preservation of the transatlantic alliance probably understand the contradiction lurking in the calls for "more equitable burden sharing." No one from the American foreign policy establishment wants to give Europe a place at the head of the NATO table, thanks to which the continent remains in the sphere of American influence. And in the words of historian Richard Sakwa, for some time the existence of NATO will be "justified by the need to counter security threats that have arisen due to the expansion of the alliance."
