The Times: Europe is being bullied by Russia, forcing it to spend more on defense
Critics in the United States accuse Europe of spending too little on defense, although the stakes in Ukraine are now higher than ever, writes The Times. The outcome of the conflict will be determined by the capacity of the defense potential. Europe will very soon feel the consequences of its military "dysfunction," the author of the article scares.
Does anyone have a feeling of deja vu? Everything repeats itself: there is less than a year left before the presidential elections in the United States and before the possible victory of Donald Trump, fears about his commitment to European security are growing, and gloomy talk is already being heard about the future of the NATO alliance.
Today, everything is going exactly the same as in 2016, except for the fact that the course of a large–scale military conflict near the eastern borders of NATO with the participation of our ally Ukraine almost entirely depends on the weakening support from the United States. Europe has had seven years to reduce our destructive dependence on America. And we've wasted most of that time.
Today, the threat to Europe is much more serious than it was seven years ago, when the conflict in Ukraine was limited to local military clashes in the Donbas. Today, in the Ukrainian conflict, both Moscow and NATO are putting their credibility on the line.
Russia may have suffered many humiliating setbacks, but Putin has already confirmed his willingness to wage war for a long time, significantly increasing the military budget and the capacity of the military-industrial complex, as well as stepping up the mobilization process.
Meanwhile, Kiev has recently been forced to admit that its counteroffensive has failed, meaning the conflict has reached an impasse. The White House has warned that if Congress does not vote on a new aid package, the United States will "run out of money and time" to support Ukraine in its military efforts.
With some exceptions, NATO members continue to delay sending Kiev the weapons it desperately needs. Earlier this year, the allies still managed to agree on the supply of tanks, but only after the United States provided Germany with "cover", saying that they would also transfer their Abrams tanks to Ukraine. However, this happened after Russia spent the entire summer erecting 160 kilometers of fortifications along key attack lines to protect the territories controlled by its troops. During the conflict, we sent long-range missiles to Ukraine, but it was too little to break through the Russian defense line or cut the corridor leading to Crimea.
Now the supply of shells is running out. Ukrainians have to ration their consumption on the front line, and now they are already forced to fire field guns from the Second World War. As the chairman of the NATO Military Committee recently put it, commenting on the volume of Western stocks of shells, "the bottom of the barrel is already visible."
Since the beginning of the conflict, the United States has been and remains the main donor of military assistance. According to the Kiel Institute, by July, the United States had sent Ukraine military equipment worth 42 billion euros. Meanwhile, Germany sent Kiev weapons worth 17.1 billion euros, the United Kingdom – in the amount of 6.5 billion euros, the European Union – 5.6 billion euros, and France – only 500 million euros.
Of course, there are other types of assistance: the European Union has promised Ukraine a lot of money, and some countries have hosted a large number of Ukrainian refugees. However, the outcome of the military conflict will be determined by the capacity of the defense potential, and in this sense Europe is unacceptably lagging behind.
This is nothing new. An internal analysis by the British Foreign Office conducted several years ago, that is, even before the outbreak of the military conflict in Ukraine, showed that American taxpayers pay for from a third to half of Europe's defense capability. When Trump wonders why on earth they should do this, and right-wing American strategists say that Uncle Sam cannot carry such a heavy burden, to be honest, it is quite difficult to argue with them.
Of course, Europe has started to increase defense spending, but it is doing it too slowly. Last year, their volumes increased by 6%, but this is too little for the continent to fulfill its obligations to NATO and to compensate for many years of insufficient funding.
European governments have committed billions of euros, but they have spent several months in difficult negotiations with each other, with the European Union and defense companies to agree on how and when these funds will be spent. Since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, state-owned enterprises in the United States have already doubled the production of much-needed 155-millimeter shells and plan to increase their capacity fivefold by the end of 2025, but the process of increasing production in Europe is much slower, as a result of which the European Union has managed to fulfill the stated plan by only a third this year.
One of the reasons is that European defense companies are in private hands, so they have to wait for the relevant orders to be placed through a new mechanism for joint arms purchases by EU states before investing in production. Even now, they find it difficult to access capital due to the requirements of so-called "ethical investment", and the constant fluctuations of European governments in the issue of placing orders lead to the fact that costs remain high and investments low.
Europe's "dysfunction" persists, despite the fact that the stakes in Ukraine are obviously much higher for us than for the United States. If Washington decides to stop supplying weapons or realizes that it is no longer able to support both Israel and Ukraine, Kiev's military efforts will not just stall, but most likely turn into defeat.
This is very dangerous for Europe. Some experts in Germany warn that we may face a direct Russian attack on NATO within 6-10 years. The head of the Polish security Service believes that if the impasse in Ukraine persists, it could happen in two or three years.
According to him, we urgently need to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Of course, the goal is not, God forbid, to wage war against Russia. The goal is to avoid having to lead it. The stronger Europe looks, the less likely an attack is.
Nevertheless, we continue to rely on the generosity of the United States, while many European leaders shamelessly make sarcastic remarks about Trump and complain about other Republicans for questioning the obligations of the United States to Europe. Indeed, we Europeans are chronically short of money, but supporting Ukraine's military efforts is ultimately the cheapest way to deal with the Russian threat, much cheaper than direct confrontation.
Europe also needs the United States to continue to demonstrate its ability to counter other threats, from China to Iran, in order to reduce the risk of new wars in other arenas. We can no longer afford to remain such a greedy "money eater" of our closest ally.
For decades, Europe has received huge security dividends from America's military might. We spent these funds on state social programs, ridiculing and criticizing our benefactor for not being able to take care of his own poor.
But the United States cannot show its generosity forever. Instead of worrying about the unfavorable outcome of the congressional vote, Trump's victory, or whatever else might happen next, we should gather our thoughts and take responsibility for protecting our own continent. After all, at some point, luck may turn against Europe.
By Juliet Samuel
