Give President Donald Trump credit. He got Europe’s attention.
For decades American presidents and defense secretaries threatened, badgered, asked, and begged European leaders to spend more on their militaries. Uncle Sam’s persistent whining was embarrassing.
Yet even during the Cold War while facing the Soviet Union, NATO’s European members largely acted as if fielding armed services was a luxury rather than a necessity. Their promises to do more were mostly pro forma and routinely violated. After the end of the Cold War most of the countries rushed to disarm.
The Europeans essentially laughed off Washington’s requests for two reasons. Few NATO member governments appeared to take Moscow seriously as a threat. They also figured in the end Americans would make up any European deficiencies.
Despite the Europeans’ post-Cold War approach of doing less, the Clinton and Bush administrations insisted upon rapid NATO expansion, up to Russia’s borders. President Barack Obama was left to bring in the major geopolitical power Montenegro, along with its two thousand man military. Exactly how adding ever weaker states of no military value enhanced American security was not explained.
Left unfilled were NATO’s 2008 promises to include Georgia and Ukraine. It obviously was a bad idea even then. Volatile Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili started a disastrous war with the Russian Federation.
The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was even more unpleasant for Russia. After the ouster of the pro-Russian president in a 2014 street putsch backed by Brussels and Washington Moscow detached Crimea and backed separatists in the Donbas in Ukraine’s east. That triggered sanctions on Russia which continue, along with the fighting.
The Ukraine conflict triggered an existential crisis for NATO. Members were reminded that it was a military alliance, not a social club.
Yet few European states met even NATO’s anemic two percent of GDP standard. So unprepared for combat was the continent that European governments had run out of missiles fighting Libya.
Since then then the U.S. insisted on doing more while complaining about being unappreciated.
Into this world stepped candidate Donald Trump. His criticisms helped spur several European states toward meeting their two percent commitment.
Alas, the improvement is largely cosmetic. Seven of the other 28 NATO members are expected to meet that standard this year, all barely. But most are small and the United Kingdom cheats on the numbers.
Notable is who is missing. France, which along with the UK possesses the continent’s most capable militaries.
Germany, which spends only 1.24 percent on a military in veritable crisis, ill-prepared to deploy to meet any serious contingency. Both Italy and Spain, other sizeable and influential European states. Overall, the Europeans remain as dependent as before.
Which illustrates the problem of the two percent standard. It is simultaneously too high and too low.
European governments find it difficult to increase military outlays because European peoples feel little need to do so. Vladimir Putin is a nasty character, but he isn’t Joseph Stalin.
Georgia was easy prey. Backing Abkhazia and South Ossetia was payback for Kosovo and created a frozen conflict inhibiting Tbilisi’s entry into NATO.
Ukraine was similar. Crimea, contained an important Sebastopol naval base, was historically Russian and contained an ethnic Russian majority which probably wanted to return to Moscow’s embrace. Fomenting conflict in the Donbas weakened Ukraine and likely kept it out of the transatlantic alliance as well.
Neither of these Russian interventions, though lawless and unjustified, suggested European-wide aggression. The result of which almost certainly would be economic isolation and full-scale war, which Moscow would lose.
If there is no Slavic Menace, then what? Why spend two percent on militaries which have no obvious role?
However, if there is some as yet undisclosed menace which warrants American involvement in the continent’s defense, then two percent of GDP is far too low. After all, Europe’s economy is equivalent to America’s. Europe’s population is larger. If the Europeans need to be defended against someone, they have the wherewithal to do so.
President Trump insisted that NATO has “got to start paying your bills.” But such arguments are divisive without yielding much benefit in military effectiveness. Instead the administration should decide what it is willing to do.
First, Washington should turn Europe’s defense over to Europe. Second, Washington should suggest continuing cooperation over shared interests beyond Europe.
Such a division of responsibilities suggests refashioning NATO. The Europeans could take over the alliance, perhaps with America as an associate member.
NATO needs to change. Instead of arguing over spending targets, the allies should rearrange defense responsibilities for today’s world.
Doug Bandow is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.
