[ad_1]
Many Europeans are concerned that Donald Trump will withdraw from NATO if he is re-elected as president, and are alarmed that the US Congress is close to cutting off military aid to Ukraine. They are discussing the possibility of building their own independent national defense force, and, if necessary, to thwart an expanding Russia.
The problem is: That task is impossible.At least for the next few years, in Europe need The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an alliance that the United States must lead to protect.
NATO’s 30 European members (in addition to transatlantic partners the United States and Canada) have spent more money on defense since 2014, when Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, and Putin It has spent even more money since 2022, when it invaded all of Ukraine. Only three of these countries had made good on their pledges to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, but 18 countries are on track to meet or exceed that goal this year.
But measured in dollars and euros, it will not be enough without the US contribution. Of the total $1.3 trillion spent by the 32 NATO countries on defense, more than half of it, $860 billion, is spent by the United States.Indeed, the US military global Much of that money will go to defense in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and elsewhere. But our global military also Communication network; ships, planes, troops, etc. that are usually deployed in one area; Re– Deployed to another region. In theory, the entire budget could benefit Europe. But let’s say only half of the budget goes primarily to Europe (which would include vast and very expensive military bases all over Europe). That amount, $430 billion, is more than the 10 largest spending countries after NATO combined.
Jana Prielin, head of the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, told me in a recent email: It costs a lot of money (more expensive than the famous 2%). ”
She further added: [this independent defense force] Maybe it can be organized. ”
The problem with this organization ○ In NATO, it is at least as important and complex as money. If NATO were not formally and explicitly led by the United States, it would be a loose collection of states and not a unified alliance. The military leader of NATO, known as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, is by charter (and no member states object) a United States officer.
According to NATO’s website, “SACEUR is responsible for the overall command of NATO military operations.” This includes planning these operations, analyzing their requirements, identifying what forces are needed to meet those requirements, requesting those forces from the political and military authorities of NATO countries, This includes managing all resulting resources, operating training facilities, and regular access to all military commanders. , served as NATO’s senior public relations officer and, in the event of war, directed the entire war effort in campaigns to “maintain or restore security to Alliance territory.”
For better or worse, not many European generals had the experience or know-how to carry out all these tasks. Or, if there were many such officers, who among them would decide which members of this independent European Wehrmacht would rise to the top of the hierarchy? Germany would submit to French generals? Or? Will Poland answer the orders of the Germans? Will positions and commander-in-chief rotate from country to country? If so, how will continuity be maintained?
These are not easy questions. They get to the heart of the problem of creating and maintaining military alliances. In the case of NATO, the SACEUR position arose from the Allied structure during World War II, and it seemed prudent to maintain this arrangement after the war when the Cold War began, and has remained ever since. Seems to be wise.
This transatlantic relationship has at times been strained by events and domestic politics in particular member states. In the early 1960s, French President Charles de Gaulle withdrew from NATO’s military structure and even ordered France to develop its own nuclear deterrent, but in his words, “there was no need to put New York at risk for the sake of Paris.” I didn’t trust the American president who would expose himself. As President Trump touted the wisdom of alliances in general and leaving NATO in particular, French President Emmanuel Macron declared the goal of “strategic autonomy” for European defense.
That’s a lofty goal. Journalist and historian Timothy Garton Ash, who has chronicled the collapse of the Soviet empire and the restoration of European democracy in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, recently wrote in the Guardian: You have to stand up for yourself. ” at the end of his wonderfully moving 2023 book Homeland: A personal history of EuropeGarton Ash looked forward to the day when a resurgent Europe could provide its own defense, the United States could pursue its interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and contain threats (which he hoped would come soon). ).
I’m also looking forward to that day. But as Garton Ash (a strong supporter of NATO) has acknowledged elsewhere, that day won’t come soon – and may be even further away than he had hoped in his book. . European countries have supported Ukraine, but without U.S. weapons, training, logistics, and intelligence support, the effort would have failed. The same applies in the case of invasions against European countries. It’s good to see that the Europeans are more focused than ever. But for better or worse, they can only withstand an existential threat if NATO is present. Thrive.
[ad_2]
Source link
