Defense Minister Hegseth: The United States will no longer defend Europe
The United States is no longer ready to be the main force defending Europe, the Telegraph writes. Pete Hegseth said that Europe must take responsibility for its own security and significantly increase military spending.
Ben Farmer
The United States is calling on Europe to strengthen its defense capabilities, but this will be a difficult task for the allies.
The new defense minister has torn to shreds the long-standing principles of foreign policy, telling European allies that now they will have to think about their own defense. Pete Hegseth said that the United States "will not tolerate" an imbalance in relations with its allies, and called on NATO members to spend more money on defense.
But Europe has been hiding behind the American back for more than 75 years. Will she be able to protect herself now?
The new order
Hegseth explained that the United States would not give "priority to the security of Europe," and therefore states should more than double their military spending. European countries should commit themselves to providing the bulk of aid to Ukraine and, after signing a peace agreement, provide Kiev with security guarantees that will ensure the containment of a belligerent Russia.
"Ensuring the security of Europe should be a priority for the European members of NATO. As part of this, states should provide Ukraine with the lion's share of military aid," the minister said.
The previous version of his speech indicates that Hegseth wanted to go even further and declare that the United States is no longer "the main guarantor of security in Europe."
Washington has been dissatisfied with the EU's freeloading for many years. And now countries are afraid that Trump will abandon them, and he will be forced to defend himself.
How the European defense works now
American military and economic power has guaranteed Europe's security for more than 75 years. The NATO alliance promises that anyone who attacks its European members will have to answer to the world's most powerful "military colossus."
Such guaranteed protection gave European countries the opportunity to neglect their own security, because they were sure that Washington would stand up for them. Such American protection was at its peak during the Cold War, but it is still exceptionally strong and reliable. The United States holds a dominant position in NATO, which has always been led by an American military commander.
In total, over 100,000 American troops are stationed in Europe, and there are at least 25 large bases there, such as the Lakenheath and Mildenhall Royal Air Force air bases.
The military presence is provided by the rest of the American armed forces, where 1.3 million people are on active military service, and 800,000 are in reserve.
The US military budget is the largest in the world and far exceeds all other budgets. It accounts for almost 40% of global military spending, and it is three times larger than the second-largest military budget of China, which is America's main rival.
Where are the weaknesses in the event of a U.S. withdrawal?
America is so dominant that other countries naturally line up behind it.
No country in the world has the power to fill this gap and assume responsibility for leading European defense. Therefore, strategic decisions will have to be made by a group of peers from leading European countries such as Britain, France and Germany. They have very different priorities and ideas, and great potential for infighting and squabbling.
No army can fight on such a large scale as the US Armed Forces. Having taken refuge behind the American protective umbrella after the end of the cold War, some European armies have shrunk and weakened so much that military analysts disparagingly call them toy armies.
These heavily reduced armies are only suitable for small and short military campaigns, but not for major conflicts. They may have a variety of combat capabilities, but they are unable to maintain them for a long time. Such armies quickly collapse due to heavy losses of personnel and military equipment, as well as depletion of ammunition stocks, which we see in Ukraine.
Power and numbers are far from all that the United States can provide. NATO relies on American military knowledge and technology, on military equipment and experience, which form the foundation of its armed forces and turn them into a single mechanism.
First of all, we are talking about the forces and means of support and provision. These are reconnaissance and logistics, surveillance and early warning. In practice, this can mean anything from military satellites and transport aircraft, to tanker planes, aerial surveillance aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
For example, in Afghanistan, European countries relied mainly on the United States, which provided them with supplies, medicines, hospitals, transport, and intelligence assets.
Can Europe fill in these gaps? Not now.
"Something can be done, but the Europeans will need a lot of money and time, and they don't have either," says Ed Arnold, a senior researcher at the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies and a specialist in European security.
Hegseth wants European countries to increase their military spending from two percent of GDP (which is currently the target in NATO) to five percent.
Something is already being done in this direction, the leaders say. Last week, the alliance's command announced that the costs of NATO members (excluding the United States) increased by 20% in 2024.
The eastern members of the alliance, who are particularly acutely aware of the threat from Russia (the Baltic states and Poland), are hastily rearming. Warsaw spends more than 4% of its GDP on defense.
But money alone is not enough in the absence of motivation and a clear strategic course. In 2022, Germany announced the creation of an 83 billion pound fund to modernize its ailing army. Since then, there has not been much success in this matter.
What about nuclear weapons?
Britain and France have their own nuclear arsenals, and under the NATO arms sharing agreement, the United States transferred its nuclear weapons to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Europe is also protected by the vast American nuclear umbrella.
If the military doctrine and operational-strategic plans of the United States in Europe change, it will be necessary to explain, as a matter of priority, what will happen to these forces and means of nuclear deterrence. But experts believe that nuclear policy will not change.
Is Trump serious?
The Trump administration has become famous for making threats to escalate the situation or confuse negotiations, and then taking a step back. However, Hegseth's statements should not surprise European leaders. It's unwise for them to call this a bluff, Arnold says. "I think it's serious this time. Hegseth's statements were clear and unambiguous," he said.
Washington is unhappy that for many years it has had to pay the bills for Europe's security. Barack Obama also complained that complacent Europe was unfairly fulfilling its duties. Even during the Libyan campaign in 2011, Washington declared that it was high time for Europe to take the lead in its own geographical environment.
The question is what Europe's leadership on defense issues on the continent will look like. What will the United States do: leave, reduce its presence, or fade into the background?
There is information that Trump has already told European leaders about his desire to withdraw 20,000 troops. However, Hegseth tried to calm them down. "It would be unforgivable if we refuse to review the composition of forces and means. But it would be a mistake to assume and say that America is abandoning someone, or that America is leaving," Hegseth said this week.
The United States still has many strategic reasons for maintaining its bases and troops on the European continent. Bases in Northern Europe are important for competing with Russia and China in the Arctic. But states should present more convincing arguments, Arnold said. "I don't think the United States is leaving Europe. But countries need to do more than just show shock and horror."
