[ad_1]
After decades of complacency, reality is beginning to emerge. The world is becoming less inexorable, authoritarian states are turning a blind eye to democracy and liberalism, and geopolitical competition is becoming increasingly dangerous.
European countries face multiple threats to their security. Russia continues its war against Ukraine and may attack other countries in the future. The Kremlin, Beijing, and others seek to undermine our security and stability at home, stealing industrial and military secrets, launching cyberattacks, and waging so-called hybrid warfare.
Although Iran will one day achieve its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, it is using its proxies to attack Western interests and undermine global trade routes. In Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is being regrouped under the Taliban umbrella.
Islamists continue to operate freely across the continent, with terrorists planning attacks, extremists spreading extremist ideology and hatred, and organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and others receiving public funds and politicians and the public. Legitimacy is given to engagement with organizations and the media. Among the millions of people flowing into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East are radicals and extremists, some of whom inevitably attack and kill civilians.
Powerful forces from within and outside Europe seek to destroy our security, our prosperity, and our way of life. And even now that we are no longer complacent, we are woefully underprepared. The immigration crisis continues. Islamism is not confrontational, but appeasement. And when it comes to China, short-term commercial interests outweigh long-term security risks.
Europe’s defense capabilities, even as Donald Trump questions the future of NATO and US Republicans withhold support for Ukraine and demand that Europe pay more for its own security. The debate over this is like a hangover from another era. European capitals do not seem to realize that if Trump wins the next election, there is a good chance he will force Ukraine to cede territory and reconcile with Russia.
Some Republicans even speculate that he will give 90 days’ notice of his intention to abandon the NATO treaty. If this were to happen, it would likely result in a characteristically aggressive negotiating posture aimed at forcing European countries to increase their contributions to the alliance. Still, such a move would embolden Vladimir Putin, shatter trust among allies and give Europeans the illusion that independence might be possible in the future.
And the truth is that they are very likely to fall into loneliness. This must be the most pressing fact in European politics. Instead, the debate will be, to the extent possible, which countries will achieve the goal of spending 2% of GDP on defense (a goal that NATO governments agreed to achieve a decade ago) and which candidates will be appointed to the next NATO. Focus on what should be done. General Secretary. The new favorite, Mark Rutte, is a formidable politician who handled Trump well as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, but it took a long time for Republicans to understand that the wealthy Netherlands spends just 1.7% of its GDP on defense. It won’t take long.
It is true that European defense spending is increasing. Poland, for example, accounts for up to 3.9 percent of GDP. Other countries threatened by Russia – Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania – have all increased spending significantly. However, overall European spending remains below 2%, with major countries still lagging behind. Although Germany has committed to future spending, defense spending last year was just 1.57% of gross domestic product (GDP). France has not yet met its target, and the UK has, but is still spending less than it used to.
The question is no longer whether Europe can achieve the 2% target, but whether European countries have the necessary capabilities to protect themselves and their interests, and how much and what kind of spending. The question is whether it can be achieved.
For example, countries like Italy and Spain spend about 60 percent of their defense budgets on personnel, while the United States spends about 28 percent, less on major equipment and related research and development. Last year, NATO countries spent $1.26 trillion on national defense, of which $860 billion came from the United States and only $375 billion came from Europe.
Realistically, if Europe were to take responsibility for its own security, each country would need to spend around 3 percent of its total GDP. And while NATO countries have now achieved the goal of spending 20% of their defense budgets on equipment, they still need to invest more in research and development and military technology. To achieve this and align capabilities, new agreements will need to be struck.
Given the seriousness of the threats we face and our conviction that Europe can no longer be a freeloader, regardless of who the next president is, the UK should play a leading role in convening Europe’s leaders. We should start this initiative now.
Together with France, Europe’s other leading military power, and other major powers such as Germany and Poland, the government should convene a security summit long before the US elections.
As has been experienced in countries such as the United States, Israel, and Estonia, increases in defense spending, especially when spending on technology and research and development, can have spillover effects on commercial and industrial success. But there’s little point in pretending that expanding the defense budget doesn’t mean difficult choices. If it reaches 3 percent of GDP, for example, international aid spending will soon look like an indulgence we can’t afford.
This is the reality of the world we live in now. 18% of Ukraine’s territory is occupied by Russia, and 6.4 million Ukrainians are refugees. And although this phase of the war began two years ago, hostilities actually began 10 years ago, when Putin invaded Crimea. History has always taught us that aggressors take advantage of weaknesses and that peace can only be won through strength. Whether the enemy is Russia, China or Iran, whether the threat is domestic terrorists or foreign militaries, we must show that we are stronger and more determined than they are. It doesn’t have to be.
[ad_2]
Source link
