In January, the Europeans panicked after Donald Trump took office and announced plans to reduce aid to Ukraine. Not only was Trump going to seek a peace deal for Ukraine with Russia, but America's 75-year emphasis on defending the European continent was ending. Europe would have to largely fend for itself.
The Europeans shouldn't have been surprised. It was Barack Obama who wanted to make the Far East a linchpin of American defense while de-emphasizing our ties to Europe. The Europeans simply ignored Obama, thinking their relationship with the U.S. would continue unchanged forever and they would be safe in maintaining their welfare state while neglecting defense.
Imagine the shock when some EU countries woke up and discovered how vulnerable they were. Not only were their individual nations deficient in arms, but the entire bloc of European Union nations had precious little to defend themselves with.
Hence, a crash program to rebuild national defenses in Europe after they'd been dormant for more than 60 years. The EU proposed a massive €800 billion program to build up every nation's defense. Immediately, there was opposition.
The biggest obstacle to rearmament is the bloc's rules about debt and borrowing. There are limits to borrowing and the percentage of debt to GDP that an EU country can carry. If those were the only problems, the EU might have a chance to survive. However, when the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the €800 billion plan that she dubbed "Rearm Europe," there were objections from both Italy and Spain, who thought the name was too aggressive. So now the plan has been rebranded as “Readiness 2030.”
Yes, they're doomed.
Additionally, the bloc's strong, unified stance on defending Ukraine has melted in the face of reality.
Kaja Kallas, the former prime minister of Estonia who is now the chief foreign and security official for the European Union, has been a forceful advocate for supporting Ukraine as a first line of European defense against an aggressive, militarized Russia.
But it has been a rocky start for Ms. Kallas. Her effort to get the E.U. to provide up to 40 billion euros (more than $43 billion) to Ukraine through a small, fixed percentage levy on each country’s national income has gone nowhere.
Her backup proposal, for an added €5 billion as a first step toward providing Ukraine two million artillery shells this year, was also rejected by Italy, Slovakia and even France, an E.U. official said, speaking anonymously in accordance with diplomatic practice. The countries insisted that contributions to Ukraine remain voluntary, bilateral and not required by Brussels.
Even after the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Europeans were all mouth and no action. The brave rhetoric to stand up for Ukraine turned out to be empty, hollow posturing. European leaders were even reluctant to bear the cost of their own rearmament and feared that increasing defense spending would give the U.S. an excuse to pull back, making the burden permanent for Europeans.
Related: Baby Steps: Ukraine and Russia Agree to Black Sea Cease Fire With Conditions
Jack Watling, a pro-American scholar at the Royal United Services Institute in London, writes in Foreign Affairs, pinpointing why Europeans are so angry with Trump:
Europe bears significant blame for not doing more to address U.S. concerns before Trump regained office. But the manner in which Trump has forced the issue has prompted a particularly visceral response in European capitals. Trump could have told NATO members that he would not honor Article 5—the article in the alliance’s charter that insists that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all—for states that failed to meet their NATO commitments, which would have required around three percent of GDP in defense spending from most members. Such an ultimatum would likely have rankled European capitals, but many would have complied. The United States, after all, would have simply been demanding that these states front the funds for what they had promised to do. Instead, the administration’s withdrawal of support for Ukraine cut much deeper. It risked a rapid deterioration in European security by giving Russia a path to achieving a range of its hostile designs on Ukraine, and it left both European leaders and publics feeling betrayed. European countries no longer trust that the United States will protect their interests, even in the most fundamental areas of security and defense.
In other words, the U.S. has different priorities, mainly in the Far East but also in Africa, that need the attention of its defense establishment. Western Europe as a bloc has a gross domestic product of $29 trillion. They aren't rebuilding from World War II anymore. They don't need a U.S. Marshall Plan. They can't plead poverty.
It would be a shame if the birthplace of Western Civilization can't muster the will and wherewithal to defend itself from aggression without the United States.
