On Thursday, the European Union (EU) agreed to spend more than $680 billion on national security in its first tentative steps to pay for its own defense.
I'll believe it when I see it.
The EU has strict rules about spending and debt that almost all members will have to break in order to achieve even the modest 2% of Gross Domestic Product spent on defense called for by NATO. The socialist governments are terrified of having to choose between guns and butter, and will likely look for ways to get around any agreement made with the rest of the EU on defense spending levels. As far as "protecting" Ukraine, that promise will be honored in the breach.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen knows the fun and games are over. She said to journalists, "Europe faces a clear and present danger, and therefore Europe has to be able to protect itself, to defend itself, we have to put Ukraine in a position to protect itself and to push for lasting and just peace."
There was brave talk from EU Council President António Costa about the EU protecting Ukraine: "A stronger European defense also provides deterrence for Ukraine. Ukraine's security is at the core of Europe's security."
If that's the case, we can kiss the EU goodbye. I doubt whether Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that the EU "deters" Moscow from doing anything it pleases. Only the U.S. and what America will do concerns the Russian dictator.
The EU's closing statement to the summit spoke of the "readiness of member states to urgently step up efforts to address Ukraine's pressing military and defense needs, in particular the delivery of air defense systems, ammunition and missiles, the provision of necessary training and equipment for Ukrainian brigades, and other needs that Ukraine may have."
Former Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren told NPR that European leaders have realized "this might be the moment where we are on our own and we have to make sure that we are secure and that Ukraine does not lose this war and that Russia doesn't win this war of aggression."
She says it's time to declare a "war economy" in Europe, as difficult as it may be to make those political decisions on the budgets of its members.
"These are difficult choices. And you have to explain them to people," she said. "But it has to be done."
Color me skeptical — again. This is empty talk. "War economy"? Whom are they trying to fool? The people won't fall for this hooey, and neither will Putin.
If the brave talk is for the benefit of President Zelensky, I sincerely hope he doesn't believe it, either. He wants to "stop the war, guarantee security, and ensure a just and lasting peace." If he's looking to the EU to achieve that, he's delusional. The EU is a decade away from becoming a major military power, and that's if it carries through on its plans for military spending.
Today was a very productive day in Brussels for Ukraine and all of Europe at the European Council summit at the leaders’ level. I had good meetings with @eucopresident and @vonderleyen. Met with @EmmanuelMacron, @Bart_DeWever, and @_CStocker on the sidelines of the summit. Also…
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) March 6, 2025
Some on the left are trying to make the argument that terms such as "the West" and "the Free World" are now meaningless, because the U.S won't continue to fund President Zelensky's delusions of recapturing Ukrainian territory taken by the Russians.
Roger Cohen, writing in the New York Times:
The emotional impact on Europe is profound. On the long journey from the ruins of 1945 to a prosperous continent whole and free, America was central. President John F. Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963 framed the fortitude of West Berlin as an inspiration to freedom seekers everywhere. President Ronald Reagan issued his challenge — “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” — at the Brandenburg Gate in 1987. European history has also been America’s history as a European power.
But the meaning of “the West” in this dawning era is already unclear. For many years, despite sometimes acute Euro-American tensions, it denoted a single strategic actor united in its commitment to the values of liberal democracy.
Now there is Europe, there is Russia, there is China and there is the United States. The West as an idea has been hollowed out. How that vacuum will be filled is unclear, but one obvious candidate is violence as great powers duke it out.
Cohen cut his journalistic teeth in a bipolar world. He grew to eminence in the unipolar world of the 1990s.
Those worlds are gone. We can't see what will replace them, only that it will be different. In this, Europe must find its own way. If the Europeans keep living in the past, looking to the U.S. to save them, they will never move forward. More flexible, agile societies in the East and across the sea will overtake them.
At this point, it doesn't appear that they have the foresight to make it.
