President Trump has never had much love for NATO alliance, who believes he is an overcome by the North -American preparation and, in his first term, has talked about leaving the collective defense pact.
In his second term, Mr. Trump and his senior officials have made it clear that Europe’s safety is no longer the first priority in the United States, which wants to concentrate resources on its own border and Indo-Pacific, where China has become a peer rival.
On Thursday, Mr. Trump suggested it The United States could not protect —S NATO members who believed they did not pay enough for their own defense, calling « common sense ».
But what should Europeans do to replace the huge -American contribution to NATO?
The answer is reduced to money, to staff, in time and co -operation with Washington, said Ivo Daalder, former north -American ambassador to NATO and co -author of A recent report From Belfer Center de Harvard on how to create « a strong European pillar » in the Alliance.
The central problem is that NATO was built as a United States-dominated alliance, intentionally dependent on American leadership, sophisticated weapons, intelligence and air transport. The current NATO control structure is essentially owned and operated by the United States, led by General Christopher G. Cavoli.
« The United States is the starting point for the alliance to be able to control our allies and to do what we want, » said Daalder. More practically, the United States Army is the NATO skeleton and « if it suddenly removes the skeleton, the body dies. »
Money
With respect to other challenges, money is the easiest part of the European problem. The question, as always, is the political will and the commitment to spend larger sums and the costs and political costs that it will entail.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Poland said it simply last week, saying: « 500 million Europeans ask 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians. » What is missing in Europe, he said, is « the belief that we are really a global force. »
Friedrich Merz, the next chancellor in Germany, offered a daring response to new pressures on Europe this week, proposing to spend about 1 trillion euros, or $ 1.07 trillion, in the army and the infrastructure for the next ten years.
Britain, Belgium, Poland and Denmark have also recently said that they would spend more. On Thursday, EU leaders agreed to increase military spending outside the normal debt limits. But in general, European nations remain timid of expert spending that they say they will have to replace the North -American Commitment.
These estimates vary, but they can be a rise of € 250 million a year, or about 1.5 percent of the European Union Gross Domestic study From two research institutions, Bruegel and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
The study recommends that European nations spend at least 3.5 percent of GDP a year in the army; Currently only five of the 32 NATO members, including the United States, Spending over 3 percent.
Europeans have a lot, but they also need much more sophisticated armament, now largely provided by the United States. Ben Hodges, a former United States Army Commander in Europe, is in the defense of air and missiles and a long-range precision strike ability, said Ben Hodges, a former United States Army Commander.
In Europe, it also lacks « strategic enabled », including transport planes, sophisticated drones and satellites: crucial systems of intelligence, surveillance and recognition.
He had the ability to produce more than his own weapons. But this would require better coordination between nations to invest in the right industries and buy together.
Ideally, Europe has enough ammunition and missile stocks to combat a high -intensity war for at least six months, but they are bad from the war in Ukraine.
A study The International Institute of Strategic Studies found that even the foundations such as the number of combat battalions and the battle tanks have remained static or fallen since 2014, despite the annexation of Russia Crimea.
Political will also matters here, to overcome bureaucratic restrictions and requirements for manufacturers.
The European Investment Bank is forbidden to provide loans to make weapons, although the European Union renses the rule.
And German law requires weapons manufacturers to have direct government orders before even production can begin. This causes that the potential sales production is impossible, even if they have excess capacity now.
Staff
Right now, there are only about 100,000 North -American troops in Europe, a number that could fit in the football stadium at Michigan University, said Mr. Hodges, who used to command them.
However, it seems almost impossible for Europeans, even if they increase military expenditure, could quickly replace most, much less, and much less fight for their prolonged period.
Of the North -American troops, 20,000 were sent to Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, on the deterrent of NATO. Analysts expect the Trump administration to take these troops before too long.
Mr. Hodges said that 40,000 of the North -American troops, who are in Europe with expensive rotations, are found in Europe, which Mr. Trump is also likely to want to stop.
There are several problems for Europe to replace these numbers.
Only a good number of European nations still have prescription forces. And attracting the right recruits is difficult; Payment scales and career prospects are better in the civil world. Even once the soldiers have been trained, especially in high-tech war work or « back office charges » such as engineering or mechanics, it is difficult to retain them.
Recent suggestions that Europeans put troops in Ukraine to ensure a possible peace agreement could be an additional tension for staff, potentially in the long term.
NATO already pressures members to meet the requirements of a new force model. According to this agreement, more than 300,000 soldiers should be available within 30 days To strengthen the eastern flank of the alliance against Russia in the event of a crisis.
For now, there is simply not enough soldiers, specialists in logistics and intelligence agents.
« The European armies are too small to handle even the arms they now have, » said Jim Townsend, a former Deputy Secretary of Defense of the United States, who is now in the center of a new -American safety.
« The British and the Danish, to choose two examples, are good military, but they could not hold intense combat for more than a couple of weeks, » he said. « No matter how good you are if it’s not enough. »
Weather
The scale of what NATO -Americans now handle for NATO is too large to replace it quickly. To buy or produce the necessary equipment and recruit and train the necessary troops will simply need time.
In normal times, a decade would be needed for Europe to catch A detailed report about the problem of the European Council of Foreign Affairs last year.
The current meaning of the current accelerated urgency can help Europeans a little sooner. But critics argue that Europe has waited too much time to respond to delete the signaling of Mr. Trump’s first presidency, much less in his favorable comments in Russia during the campaign.
North -American officials of both parties have urged European allies to do more for their own defense for 50 years, and President Emmanuel Macron in France Warnings in 2019 North -American with NATO felt about fading, but largely without doing it.
Europeans finally try to address the money problem. But they cannot magically reduce the time needed to make a transition from North -American Domination so that they did not damage their safety enough to tempt Russia to test the alliance.
Most importantly, it would demand that the United States help the transition and synchronize their withdrawals with the European accumulation.
Cooperation
Moving from a conventional United States-dominated defense to Europe to a European could be very dangerous without American cooperation.
A sudden north -American retreat would be extremely tempting for President Vladimir V. Putin de Russia, who wants to undermine NATO. The United States must be willing to wait for key capabilities until Europeans are ready to take them, said Daalder.
Even in Ukraine, with its 900,000 soldiers that help to point out the Russian army, a European commitment of even 30,000 to 40,000 peace maintenance troops could emphasize NATO’s capacity to deter Russia of trying the alliance in the Baltic, for example.
This has led some experts to suggest that a European force in Ukraine should be a force of NATO, without North -Americans on the ground, which Mr. Trump has ruled out in any case. But a force of NATO could at least use existing NATO assets, such as surveillance planes and intelligence capabilities, within the NATO control structure.
Others, such as Max Bergmann, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, think that it is time to review the concept of a European army, which the United States had long opposed.
An unified army, suggests, would take a long way to end duplication and make spending more efficient. But whoever would command an army and under what political authority are difficult questions to answer.
A permanent European army, argues, does not have to replace the United States at each capacity, but could be integrated into NATO and being robust enough to do its main job: to deter Russia from invading member states.
After all, he says, « Europe on paper has about 2 million staff in uniform and spends about $ 338 billion a year on defense, more than enough to deter Russia and enough to make Europe collectively a military power. »
Leave a Reply