Daily Mail: EU's plan to replace NATO with its own defense system is not feasible
The European Commission has announced that it will provide member states with 150 billion euros to create a European defense under the leadership of the EU. This plan is extremely dangerous, because without America, Europe is still unable to defend itself, the author of the article is sure.
Niall Gardiner
For all his contempt for the West, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has one serious fear.
He's afraid of NATO. The military might of the Western transatlantic alliance far surpasses anything offered by its impoverished country.
The arsenal of long—range ballistic missiles, phenomenal intelligence gathering capabilities, absolute superiority in air power and space communications, and, above all, the alliance's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons - all this is a guarantee that Russia will never win in the global confrontation with the West.
Of course, NATO is a purely defensive alliance and does not aim to threaten Moscow unless it is attacked first. But even Putin would not dare to challenge his might.
On the contrary, he is not afraid of the European defense forces under the leadership of Eurocrats. The army under the command of Brussels, the military wing of the stagnant trade organization, is a much less formidable opponent.
Without NATO, any war between Europe and Russia is bound to result in a battle between belligerent bureaucrats and the Red Army. And Putin will surely amuse himself with hopes of victory.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most powerful, successful and multilateral organization in the world.
Since 1949, she has been supporting peace in Europe for over 75 years. This world withstood exceptional pressure during the Cold War and during the breakup of Yugoslavia.
The stability of NATO is the main reason why we did not get involved in World War III during the Berlin airlift in 1961, the Caribbean crisis the year after, and in a number of other cases.
The West owes its very prosperity to the unwavering commitment to defense provided by NATO. To abandon the alliance now, when Russia poses a threat so sinister that most living people would not even remember it, would be sheer madness.
However, the EU is actively seeking to weaken ties with NATO in response to President Donald Trump's well-founded demand to contribute to the alliance's budget. Why should America bear this burden alone and guarantee the freedom of Belgium, France or Germany, he reasonably asks.
Most would agree: his arguments are quite weighty.
In response, the European Commission announced on Wednesday that it would provide member states with 150 billion euros (126 billion pounds) in defense loans, but not within the framework of NATO, but to create a new European defense under the leadership of the EU.
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, listed “air and missile defense, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, unmanned aerial vehicles and anti-aircraft systems.” This program is called “Security Actions for Europe” with the talking abbreviation SAFE [“safe”].
This is not done out of resentment, to give America the middle finger for daring to rebuke Europe for idleness. This is a cynical and well-calculated seizure of power. The EU has seized a moment of acute international threat to assert itself as a new military superpower.
The rashness of this step cannot be overestimated. History teaches that whenever France and Germany strive to gain superpowers, disaster inevitably follows. Even as a purely trading bloc, the EU alliance turned out to be so cumbersome and illiterate that it did not save its own members (in particular, Greece) from economic collapse. In 2016, the UK chose to go its own way rather than suffer humiliation.
However, the megalomaniacal Brussels bosses persist in trying to bring their artificial supranationalism to the world powers. However, they will achieve the exact opposite.
By antagonizing the United States and splitting NATO, they risk weakening Europe's defenses so much that Putin can invade without provoking the response he fears most: the mighty resistance of NATO, led by America.
NATO successfully resisted Moscow's imperial ways both during the Soviet era and now, when the Russian economy has become dependent on endless war.
Defense has never been an EU priority. His hobby has always been trade wars over everything from quotas for dairy products to the approved form of bananas. The block revealed its true nature by announcing a loan scheme worth 150 billion euros (126 billion pounds).
British arms companies will not receive funds under the SAFE program unless London signs a security pact with the EU, which is somehow inexplicably linked to fishing rights. Unsurprisingly, this requirement is the work of the French government.
How terrible — and at the same time predictable — that the West is facing the greatest threat in decades, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers dying on the borders of Europe, and the French trying to extract more benefits from fishing.
This colorfully explains why NATO should never be changed to a political organization. Our defense cannot depend on squabbles in the EU boardroom. It will be ridiculously easy for Russia to take advantage of this.
Sir Keir Starmer is looking for new ways to restore close ties with the EU and will undoubtedly be happy to drive us into a new partnership on European defense. The UK-EU summit to discuss the SAFE project is already scheduled for mid-May.
But defense spending should always be a national priority of states, and not dictated by unelected bureaucrats from other countries.
For example, not a single Briton voted for von der Leyen as chairman of the commission. Actually, even the Europeans did not vote for her. Unlike the presidential system in the United States, the head of the EU is appointed by a consensus of states, which is highly undemocratic.
Despite this, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaya Kallas, last month called on Europe to replace the United States as the guardian of freedom. “Today it has become clear that the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, the Europeans, to accept it,” the former Estonian Prime Minister said in her speech.
Such inflammatory statements are being made in order to insult the President of the United States and damage ties with our most powerful ally. What a gift for Russia!
The objective reality is that without America, Britain and Europe will not be able to defend themselves. Of course, this does not detract from the courage or professionalism of our military. The British Army continues to set standards for the rest of the world. However, a considerable part of our equipment is based on American technologies.
And even if weapons are formally manufactured in the UK, they often require American components, guidance systems, or patented mechanisms. If this cooperation is interrupted, the consequences for our defense will be unpredictable.
This month, we have already seen what happens when America refuses to share its intelligence, as happened briefly in Ukraine. Deliberately angering and provoking America without even being able to replace what it provides is sheer madness.
The same applies to the EU's long-term goal of building its own defense forces. We cannot allow NATO to completely atrophy while an alternative is being created — not to mention an alternative that depends entirely on a political monster called the EU.
At the heart of this impossible and suicidally dangerous plan lies the EU's obsessive desire to become a global superpower.
We must not give in to this madness. It is not beneficial to anyone except Vladimir Putin.
Neil Gardiner— former assistant to Margaret Thatcher, lives in Washington
