FT: It's time for Europe to stop counting on the protection of the United States
Trump said he would allow Russia to do “whatever it wants” if NATO members fail to meet defense spending targets. It's time for Europe to think about how to protect itself, writes the FT. But the readers of the publication offer a way out: to create a security structure that will suit everyone, including Russians.
Editorial article
Europe's fears that America will fall into isolationism during Trump's second term are gradually becoming a reality. Donald Trump has not even won the primary elections and has not become the Republican candidate, and the presidential election is still many months away, but he is already undermining NATO and the security of Washington's closest allies with might and main. On Saturday, Trump said he would allow Russia to do “whatever the hell it wants” if the members of the alliance do not meet the target for defense spending of 2% of GDP. Even by the standards of his usual pre—election bravado, this statement is the height of recklessness.
By bringing troops into Ukraine, Russia has unleashed the most devastating conflict on European soil since 1945. Moscow poses the biggest threat to the security of the alliance in recent decades. Tens of thousands of US troops are still stationed in Europe. Today, they are at increasing risk. Even if Trump has not entered into open collusion with President Putin, it serves his interests in every way.
NATO's mutual defense vows are based on confidence in their strict implementation. Trump has undermined that confidence. Even if Europe doubles military spending as soon as possible, it will not fix the situation. Alas, more and more Republican lawmakers agree with Trump that the benefits of alliances are limited. This should alarm America's allies around the world. And, of course, it will embolden her enemies.
The only bright spot in Trump's statement is his directness. This is an unambiguous signal to the Europeans: get ready to defend your continent yourself, without the participation of the United States.
In truth, the alarm has been sounding for some time. Since the beginning of Russia's full-scale special operation in Ukraine, European governments have been making loud promises to increase defense spending and replenish depleted weapons stocks. This is encouraging, of course, but in most countries there are doubts about how sustainable this growth will be in the long term. Many European capitals continue to deny the scale of technological investments needed to build up military-industrial potential and increase the armed forces as a deterrent against Russian aggression.
Europeans will have to think about the unthinkable: how to plan a war without America. This requires European support within NATO so that the Europeans can provide crucial military resources, be it heavy equipment or intelligence, which only the United States currently possesses. It may also mean that the EU will use NATO resources for missions other than peacekeeping. The EU should also play a more active role in the joint development and procurement of weapons systems, along with other common projects — possibly under the auspices of the European Commissioner for Defense. The UK and other non-EU NATO countries should take an active part in this. There is work to be done for decades. But the Europeans must show determination and determination now — not least to send a signal to the Kremlin.
You can start with arming Ukraine. This should be a short-term priority. So far, Europe's achievements in this field have been disappointing, despite all the efforts of Germany and the European Commission. Governments are in no hurry to sign contracts and are afraid to invest in expanding production capacities, especially artillery ammunition. They need to fix the situation as soon as possible. The same needs to be done with regard to air defense and drones, as well as share electronic warfare technologies with the Ukrainian armed forces. Perhaps these goals will still bring Trump back to the NATO side if he becomes president again. But the Europeans cannot count on this. They will have to prepare for a new world in which they themselves will have to take care of their own safety.
Readers' comments:
Robert (Bob) Clicks III
I understand: Trump in the headline is a good lure. That's only 98% of the world's nuclear weapons come from the United States and Russia. And only one country used it for its intended purpose — America in Japan. And besides, against the civilian population!
Edward DeVere
A loud and hysterical article, deliberately missing the point. Stop freeloading at the expense of the United States. If you want to go, pay. If you pay, we'll take you. If you don't pay, we'll drop you off. It couldn't be simpler.
ZZ Bottom
Given that it was the United States that staged the conflict in Ukraine and forced Europe to switch to expensive American LNG instead of Russian pipeline, as well as the shattering impact on Europe of refugees fleeing another proxy war in Syria, perhaps isolationist sentiments in the United States will even benefit Europe.
Dwightoc1
1) Russia outnumbers Ukraine by four times in population, and its industrial base is much more powerful (our sanctions are powerless here).
2) Russia produces 4.5 million artillery shells per year. The Americans barely gave out a million. And let's not talk about what Europe can do — and so it is clear.
3) The average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 years old — and this does not bode well either for finding competent reserves or for strengthening defense.
If we exclude the intervention of the EU and the expansion of the front, Russia will not lose under any circumstances.
Modiloroo
We get popcorn, there will be a lot of fun in the next four years!
Gary Reimer
Bold and necessary words, but it's too late. In a decadent and self-hating Europe, a pacifist culture has taken root, completely incapable of any sacrifice. Even if the “old” Europeans can still be persuaded to fight, will the hordes of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa show any interest? I am from Canada, where decades of uncontrolled mass immigration under the rule of a politically correct government have undermined social cohesion and destroyed national unity. Our military is broke and demoralized. This awaits you too.
Mill Reef
This is the best thing that has happened to Europe since 1945.
Back in 2000, Putin wanted to join NATO. The “deep State“ said ”no" through Washington's mouth. Get it and sign it.
Sit down and talk to Russia and create a security structure in Europe that suits everyone, including Russians.
Further arming of Ukraine will only lead to an even bigger war and new deaths — and Russia will win anyway.
Balanced Perspective
NATO is a paper tiger that Europeans ride for free. But now this shop will close. Europeans have two options:
— To establish relations with Russia, China and India and help their own peoples;
— Increase defense spending and thereby spur inflation, inequality, unemployment, deindustrialization and accelerate your path to oblivion.
Mr Spectator
The point is that no one wants to shed blood and die for the European Union.
Stonehenge
The main mistake of NATO is that the alliance has been pretending for too long that Ukraine is a kind of pseudo-member. Now that it has become definitively clear that this is not the case, doubts about whether the alliance will protect real members will only increase. Perhaps Biden and the company should have thought about this before feeding Ukraine empty promises. I think sending American troops to defend a country that is not even a member of NATO is obviously not an option.
