Trump Should Cut Off Europe’s Defense Welfare Queens
However, the president shouldn’t dictate to European allies how they should handle their own security.
The new administration isn’t even a month old, but already hysteria has swept Europe. After visits by Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, top European officials threw “a temper tantrum” in the words of one observer, which featured wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments on a Biblical scale. On Monday French President Emmanuel Macron hosted an emergency summit of selected continental leaders, which generated abundant kvetching but little more.
Ukraine and its European advocates warn of a new Dark Age if the U.S. makes peace with Russia, as President Donald Trump is trying to do. Even worse, NATO members fear the loss of their heretofore presumed birthright to defense by America. Governments which have repeatedly claimed that Kiev’s defeat would invite a reformed Red Army to march to the Atlantic are preparing new excuses for failing to spend more on defense. The spectacle resembles a theatrical farce.
Americans have subsidized the continent’s defense for eight decades. Despite complaints from Washington, Europeans have consistently minimized military expenditures, convinced that the U.S. would continue to do whatever was necessary to protect them. There were occasional American outbursts, such as by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates more than a decade ago. However, this political theater changed nothing—Gates retired three weeks after his famous speech—and the Pentagon continued to provide defense welfare for prosperous and populous nations across the pond and beyond.
Indeed, top U.S. officials, including Joe Biden as both vice president and president, repeatedly told the Europeans “never mind,” visiting the continent to assure listeners that no matter how little they did, they could count on America to bail them out. The Europeans understandably left the heavy lifting to Washington while concentrating on funding generous welfare states at U.S. expense. (The same Europeans often pilloried Americans for their “Anglo-Saxon model” of capitalism.)
But when Trump entered the Oval Office in 2017, he discarded the Washington Blob’s intimate comity with Eurocratic elites and insisted that they confront threats they previously demanded that Americans address. Unfortunately, his appointees consistently undercut his policy, encouraging European governments to continue leeching off the U.S. while scheming to outlast him.
After America’s 2020 election the Eurocrats breathed a sigh of relief, but now Trump is back in the White House and less willing to brook resistance. After three years of war between Russia and Ukraine, a U.S. president has finally spoken to Vladimir Putin, doing what the perpetually irresponsible (and ever somnolent) Biden should have done. Biden’s refusal to engage Putin before the invasion was reckless, even criminal, earning him plenty of blame for the terrible war that followed.
Hegseth generated shock and horror by speaking truth to dependence, forcing the Europeans to confront reality. His message was simple. Ending the conflict will require Kiev to forfeit territory now occupied by Russia. Without an agreement, Ukraine is likely to lose even more land. Kiev will not enter NATO. There is no U.S. support for going to war over Ukraine. And truth be told, most Europeans also have no desire to fight for Kiev. They expected Americans to do the dirty work. Moreover, “stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe.” The continent must step up—seriously and permanently—to protect its peoples.
Vice President J.D. Vance and Special Envoy Keith Kellogg subsequently muddied the waters by seeming to keep NATO membership for Kiev and U.S. troop deployments to Ukraine on the table. However, Vance then charged The Wall Street Journal with “twisting” his words. Kellogg insisted that Europe would not be at the negotiating table. Listeners speculated that Vance and Kellogg were attempting to preserve some bargaining leverage, while sharply limiting Washington’s support for Ukraine.
One of the few Europeans responding sensibly was The Times’ Matthew Parris: “The news from Munich pointed not to appeasement but to a dawning recognition of the obvious.” Compromise is inevitable. Vladimir Putin isn’t Adolf Hitler. Russia isn’t capable of conquering the continent.
Most importantly, it is Europeans’ failure to act that has left them at the children’s table. The continental response to Trump reflects decades of weakness and dependence. Having desperately but futilely attempted to win the American president to his position, Zelensky announced that Ukraine would ignore the initial Russo-American talks in Saudi Arabia. (Trump had said Kiev would be part of the process, and later blamed Zelensky for not having “ended” the war.) However, the Ukrainian leader can’t change reality. Kiev is losing on the battlefield. The U.S. and Europe are neither prepared to significantly increase financial aid nor able to provide sufficient materiel to restock Ukraine’s military. More importantly, manpower is Kiev’s greatest weakness. Weapons must be wielded by someone. And the allies aren’t providing any.
Of course, the Eurocratic leadership agrees that something must be done. However, the political elite lacks public support. The disdain of the European people for the leadership class may never have been greater. Right-wing parties continue to gain ground while criticizing the war. France’s Emmanuel Macron poses as Europe’s leader, but cannot command a government majority at home. Austria’s right won the last election and may organize the next administration. Germany faces rising opposition on both right and left, and next weekend’s election is likely to make the hardline Alternative for Germany the second largest party in the Bundestag. Romania’s fearful political establishment overturned the recent presidential election after a right-wing candidate unexpectedly won the first round. A repeat outcome seems likely in the upcoming electoral rerun—if he is allowed to stand.
Zelensky naturally wants the U.S. to police any peace agreement. However, that won’t happen. London, Paris, and the Nordic states talk of proceeding without Washington, but despite the apparent enthusiasm of some for this idea, they have little hope of raising tens of thousands of troops, especially when other European governments, including Germany, are opposed. Although the United Kingdom has the continent’s most capable armed services, a former British army head, Richard Dannatt, observed: “Frankly, we haven’t got the numbers, and we haven’t got the equipment.” Indeed, he warned, “Our military is so run down at the present moment, numerically and as far as capability and equipment is concerned, it would potentially be quite embarrassing.” And any mission remains highly unlikely without U.S. involvement, air defense, and Article 5 backing, which won’t happen.
After Hegseth’s and Trump’s remarks, Zelensky desperately called for creation of a continental military: “Let’s be honest, now we can’t rule out that America might say ‘no’ to Europe on issues that might threaten it.” Alas, this idea also is a chimera. The British are shrinking their army, the Germans have no follow-up to the much-heralded but conveniently-limited Zeitenwende, and major European states such as Spain continue to leave the burden of defense to others. An Italian admiral recently warned that the Russians might be coming and the continent needed to double arms production—yet his government last year devoted only an embarrassing 1.49 percent of its GDP to the military.
No one imagines that European governments, other than Poland, will ever devote five percent of GDP to their militaries, despite Washington’s demands. Even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s pressure to raise the alliance standard to something less—he suggested 3.7 percent—looks fantastical. Observed The Economist: “the reality is of a continent unwilling to inconvenience itself for something so trifling as fending off a potential invader. Europeans want more military spending, sure; some churn out ludicrous soundbites about building a ‘war economy.’ But God forbid that anyone make voters endure the cost of it.”
For decades European governments have brilliantly manipulated a long line of U.S. administrations to provide generous and largely unrestricted defense welfare irrespective of circumstances and need. The most recent target was Biden, who made his career “reassuring” the continent, and as president increased aid to Europe while adding trillions of dollars to Uncle Sam’s accumulated debt. He doubled down after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, rewarding allied weakness by deploying more American forces and devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine’s defense.
In contrast, the Trump administration is serious about putting Americans first. Unfortunately, its approach is also flawed. U.S. officials continue to tell European governments what to do, including how much to spend on their armed forces. Washington still attempts to dictate to Europeans the foreign objectives they should set, defense policies they should follow, and military equipment they should purchase.
This is doomed to fail. The fundamental problem with the transatlantic relationship is that Washington has for decades infantilized the Europeans, treating them as hapless children in desperate need of guardianship. They responded by allowing America to take care of their defense so they could devote their resources to social benefits for their people. They were irritated by U.S. hectoring but accepted it as the price of partying at American expense.
The Trump administration still wants to be in control but refuses to act like its allies’ opinions matter. One unnamed European Union official explained to Politico: “The reason why European leaders are so hurt over Trump is that the U.S. has stopped pretending to see Europe as a meaningful player on geopolitical affairs. … For decades, Europeans, as good USA vassals, required a certain decorum in how they were treated, at least publicly, as if it was an article of the feudal contract. Trump is not buying that and brought those rituals to an end. It is a rude awakening to the cruel world of today.”
That recognition is long overdue. However, the administration should stop trying to make policy for Europe. Instead, the U.S. should make policy for America and let Europe, including Ukraine, adjust accordingly. Zelensky announced that his government would “never accept deals made behind our backs without our involvement.” Obviously, Kiev should only agree to and implement a settlement, whether temporary or permanent, which it believes to be in its interest. However, Zelensky continues to dream the impossible, stating that “I also will not take NATO membership for Ukraine off the table.”
The best way to bring home reality would be for the U.S. to begin an orderly exit from the conflict. The administration should turn responsibility for providing additional aid over to Europe and negotiate with Russia over a larger security concordat, which also would resolve the war with Ukraine. Then Kiev could consult with its European partners and respond however it wished. It could continue the war, only without American backing.
U.S. policy toward Europe should be similar. The administration should open discussions with European governments over continental security, highlighted by the start of a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. Indeed, European leaders already expect the Trump administration to begin bringing forces home. America’s exit shouldn’t be abrupt, given the continent’s extraordinary reliance on Washington and desperate need to create a European military industrial base. By some estimates it could take Europe a decade to acquire the necessary equipment. However, America’s departure should be certain, to ensure that the continent takes its new defense responsibilities seriously. The end result could take various forms, ranging from a European-run NATO to a new continental security system established through the European Union. The U.S. and Europe could continue to cooperate over shared interests.
In effect, Washington should return to its original role. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower explained, Washington was supposed “to assist these people [to] regain their confidence and get on their own military feet.” To do so, the U.S. should accept divergent European objectives and policies. What European governments spend on the military would be entirely up to them. However, U.S. officials would no longer cross the pond to reassure the allies that Washington would take care of them no matter what. Europe’s defense would be Europe’s responsibility.
Trump 2.0 is playing out much like the original version. The president recognizes that the current system is flawed and unsustainable, but still wants to micromanage other countries, in this case Ukraine and America’s European allies. Washington should let go and simply turn military responsibilities over to friendly states. The process, as in Europe and especially Ukraine, won’t be easy. However, it is necessary—both for the U.S., and for its friends abroad.
The post Trump Should Cut Off Europe’s Defense Welfare Queens appeared first on The American Conservative.
Google Search
