Opinion | Russian threat grows as European officials bicker

In the resulting fallout, German, French and British officials took turns skewering each other for inconsiderate comments. The problem is that by focusing on minor gaffes, the accusations have overlooked deeper strategic problems, such as Europe’s weak combat power and poor military production, which faces the most dangerous threat since the Cold War. .

That threat, the fear of further Russian aggression, is prompting sharp increases in defense spending and a reconsideration of the continent’s dependence on the United States and other distant arms suppliers.

But even as Europe’s NATO members scramble to meet the alliance’s spending target of spending 2% of total economic activity on defence, President Putin has spent more than 7% of Russia’s GDP this year. earmarked for military spending. And sober analysts across the continent believe that a direct confrontation with Russian forces could occur before the end of the century.

This horrifying scenario, combined with America’s growing focus on China, should provide a moment of caution for European unity. In fact, it seems to be causing conflict. Perhaps a foreshadowing of what would happen if the United States scaled back its 70-year role as NATO’s undisputed leader.

The headline-grabbing gaffe began late last month when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz defended his vague refusal to send the country’s most powerful long-range missile to Ukraine. At the time, he hinted that Britain and France, which transport their own missiles, were also sending military personnel to help Kiev accurately target Russian forces, a move he said was out of the question for Germany. .

The reaction to Mr. Scholz’s remarks was furious in London, silence in Paris, and jubilation in Moscow. The statement, along with a leaked recording of a Luftwaffe officer discussing the use of missiles against Russian targets, was used to support Russia’s rumored case that it was a NATO attack. The invasion led to the invasion of Ukraine.

The same day, President Macron infuriated European partners by insisting that Russia consider sending troops to Ukraine to prevent a Russian advance in the absence of a sustained supply of arms from the United States. The ensuing uproar over what most Allies saw as breaking a taboo led him to say that “Europe is clearly facing a moment when it needs to not be a coward”, adding that people were “very concerned about what is about to happen”. I never want to see a tragedy,” he added. ”

The French president has a point. This is not to say that Europe should keep its feet on the ground in Ukraine (at least not during the fighting), but rather that it has not fully come to terms with the Russian threat.

In Europe’s most militarily powerful countries, there is a wide gap between perceived risks and preparedness.

In Brussels, European Union leaders proposed subsidizing a significant shift to joint arms procurement that would prioritize purchases from domestic arms manufacturers. The aim is for half of the EU’s defense budget to be spent within the region by 2030 and 60% by 2035.

However, the EU cannot protect Europe alone. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pointed out last month, 80 percent of the alliance’s military spending comes from non-EU allies, namely the United States and a small number of other countries.

The biggest weakness is Germany. Chancellor Scholz established a $108 billion special fund to fight a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine and rebuild Germany’s battered military, along with a major arms shipment to Kiev. But there is no plan or realistic prospect to sustain it after new spending dries up in 2028.

The reason for this is the German constitution’s strict limits on borrowing, which mean that a long-term military buildup can only be financed by large tax increases or deep cuts in health care, welfare and climate protection.

Both are politically unfeasible. However, there has been no serious discussion about lifting the debt ceiling, despite years of underinvestment in infrastructure that has weakened Germany’s economy.

France poses another problem. It is that Mr Macron has allowed perfect strategy (as he thinks) to become the enemy of good strategy.

He has advocated for Europe to strengthen its defense industry, especially France’s, a sensible goal given the growing tide of isolationism within the US Republican Party. But under the banner of what he called Europe’s “strategic autonomy,” the Czech Republic announced that Europe would buy 800,000 shells for Kiev from outside the EU, even though Ukraine is running low on ammunition. Rejected the initiative plan.

The sniping between Europe’s leaders is a sideshow that masks a larger challenge that the continent is too slow to confront. I’m sure President Putin will notice too.