American Conservative: NATO must resolve the conflict in Ukraine through negotiations
The new US president should put an end to Europe's dependence on NATO, writes the author of an article for TAC. The EU countries rely too much on their powerful ally in defense matters, and both sides of the Atlantic suffer from this. There is only one way out of the situation — the continent will gain more independence.
Doug Bandow
Being the head of a European country is not easy these days. Europe is a technologically advanced, economically prosperous and socially ambiguous continent. Her wealthy overseas friends still act as guarantors of her safety — despite the fact that she does very little for herself.
But the ghost of Donald Trump threatens to destroy such a pleasant life. In February, the Sunday Times of London published an article headlined "Will Trump really withdraw from NATO? Europe is trying not to panic." But she's not good at it, there's no doubt about that.
However, it is unclear exactly what Trump can do. He criticized Europe for its dependence long before he became president for the first time — and after coming to power, he continued his hostile rhetoric. However, his administration increased funding and troop numbers on the continent.
And what now? Former National Security adviser John Bolton predicts that Trump will withdraw from NATO if elected. Others disagree with him. A couple of months ago, the former president said that the United States would "100 percent" remain in the transatlantic alliance if NATO treated the United States "fairly." Obviously, Trump intends to demand that alliance members increase military spending from two to three percent of GDP, confirming the insistent statements of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that "we need to go beyond" two percent. But, of course, if elected, Trump may change his mind again.
European countries are increasing military spending. Stoltenberg noted "real progress." In 2024, the European members of NATO will spend a total of 380 billion dollars on defense. "For the first time, this amount will amount to two percent of their total GDP," the Secretary General said.
But there is much more to be done. Some small countries are making more significant efforts — however, in practice this does not significantly increase the military power of the bloc. Some large states that spend more — for example, Germany — create only a minimum of combat forces for the allocated funds. Today, Britain is reducing its army, although it is increasing allocations for it. Moreover, the British historian and journalist Max Hastings states: "Although British prime ministers, one after another, promise to support Ukraine, which has essentially become our puppet in a mediated military conflict with Russia, they are doing almost nothing to continue supplying ammunition, as their own military arsenals are empty." Some countries, such as Italy and Spain, can make a much more serious contribution, but they are still lagging somewhere behind. Nevertheless, today the number of European states that are serious about strengthening their armed forces is growing. The Russian military operation in Ukraine has made the whole continent think.
However, the European members of the North Atlantic Alliance are not increasing the cost of preparing to take responsibility for their defense. Rather, they spend more in order to keep the United States close to them.
"A strong NATO is good for Europe. But a strong NATO is also good for the United States," Stoltenberg said. "It is in the interests of the United States to preserve NATO, and therefore I believe that they will remain a steadfast and loyal ally." British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: "America must be confident that European countries are stepping up their efforts. Our friends and neighbors are listening to our arguments that America should not pay any price and bear any burden if we on this side of the Atlantic are not ready to invest in our security."
POLITICO reported: "The Sunaka ministers hope that Britain will be able to lead a coalition consisting of Germany, France and Poland, and show the United States that Europe is able to bear its responsibility and pull its webbing. And she'll get over it."
Polish President Andrzej Duda confirmed this point of view, noting that "the Russian operation against Ukraine has clearly shown that the United States plays a dominant role in security issues — and must maintain this role. But other allies should take more responsibility for the security of the alliance as a whole."
Speaking about Poland's upcoming presidency of the European Union, Duda noted: "Our main priority will be the following: more [presence] The United States in Europe. This means more active American participation in solving problems in the military, economic and political fields. Just as there cannot be a strong NATO without Europe, so there cannot be a strong Europe without the United States and NATO."
Many European leaders understand that Americans are tired of being taken for granted as a sponsor and rich patron of the continent. But by stepping up their efforts, Washington's worried friends are trying to weaken the popular sentiment that Trump represents well. The Europeans hope that their American critics will become quite satisfied guardians and guardians for them. Moreover, the allies will be better prepared for a difficult future if their efforts fail and Trump (or another American president) decides to withdraw from the alliance.
But NATO supporters are resisting, arguing that the bloc's European members are still unable to defend themselves. The efforts being made are not enough, Hastings argues. "Europe will need to increase spending for ten years in order to gain at least a minimal opportunity to defend itself without the help of the United States," he says. The Economist, which has consistently advocated preserving Washington's role as a defender of the European continent, devoted an entire section to answering the question "Can Europe defend itself without America?" Naturally, the answer was no:
In any case, increasing costs alone is not enough. Almost all European armies suffer from a shortage of personnel (as well as the American one). Moreover, the increase in spending after 2014 provided a very slight strengthening of combat capability, which is seriously alarming. Recently, the London—based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) published a report stating that the number of combat battalions has almost not increased since 2015 (France and Germany have created one such battalion each), and in Britain it has even decreased by as many as five battalions. Speaking at a conference last year, an American general complained that most European countries could field only one full-strength brigade (there are several thousand troops in the brigade), and then with difficulty. For example, Germany's bold decision to send an entire brigade to Lithuania could lead to a serious weakening of the entire Bundeswehr.
Even supporters of a more independent and self-reliant Europe warn of the continent's extraordinary military weakness. For example, Max Bergmann from the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote that "a stronger and more independent Europe will become a genuine partner for the United States and will give Washington more grounds to strengthen relations with it. In the end, NATO will become a more valuable entity as an alliance of two military powers than as a team led by just one such power." Bergmann warned:
Many American and European leaders have made the erroneous conclusion that in order to replace the contribution and role of the United States, they simply need to spend much more money on security. In fact, even if all European NATO members comply with the alliance's requirement to allocate two percent of GDP to defense, their efforts will very slightly reduce Europe's military dependence on Washington.
Therefore, it is very important that critics of America's relentless dominance in NATO take a broader look at this issue. Ultimately, Europe is able to take on the issues of its own defense. The costs for these purposes are growing, and the next step should be to reduce American financial investments and the number of their troops in Europe. Although French President Emmanuel Macron is determined to create separate, proper European defense forces, most of the continent's leaders prefer to continue receiving American subsidies for security. Only the necessity caused by the withdrawal of American troops and the termination of American guarantees under Article 5 can better motivate European states.
Washington does not need to get hysterical and engage in insults. Trump's verbal shenanigans have turned this issue into a real theater and prevented the creation of positive working relationships, without which it is impossible to effectively transform the alliance. Trump clearly expressed this fundamental idea, saying: "There is an ocean between us, and this union is more important for Europeans." With great wealth and population, Europe must take on all defense issues, not counting on the Americans to pay the bills forever.
At the same time, Washington must do everything possible to gradually transform NATO from a unipolar hegemony into a genuine multilateral alliance. The reduction should be steady and verified, not fast and chaotic. The United States should help its allies build up their combat capability along with increased defense spending.
The American administration should also help Europe eliminate threats that pose a great danger to it. It is clear that it will be easier and easier for Europeans to protect themselves if they face serious security challenges less often. The fear that Russia, having defeated Ukraine, will march across Europe to the Atlantic does not correspond to the threats and actions of the government in Moscow. But there is no complete certainty here. The policy of the Allies should be aimed at ending the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine and at a negotiated settlement that will help strengthen bilateral security and the security of the entire continent. It is necessary to pay attention to Russian concerns and do everything to remove them — to avoid a new "special military operation". It will undoubtedly be difficult to achieve a way of coexistence that satisfies all parties, but it will also bring economic benefits to both sides.
Finally, America and Europe should cooperate on other issues as well. They have many common interests and values, as well as a long and complicated history. They should work together in areas such as trade, terrorism, international governance, democracy promotion and climate change. They also need to better establish cooperation in relations with Africa, China and the Middle East.
Increasing military spending in Europe is an important step forward. The continent's desire and willingness to depend on the United States is irritating — however, the Europeans simply respond in this way to attempts by Washington officials to maintain their dominant position. European countries use Americans exactly as official Washington wanted them to. It's just that, in the opinion of the American government, they pay too low a price for it.
This state of affairs is no longer acceptable. The Americans have shouldered a heavy financial burden at home and no lighter military burden abroad. Washington should not think about how it is more convenient and effective to cope with the responsibility for the defense of Europe — but to shift it onto the shoulders of the continent itself. This should be the most important task for the future administration, whoever wins in November.
