EUROPE ALONE: This story is part of a package featuring nine thinkers on a future without America’s embrace. Read the full analysis here.
“We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share,” U.S. President John F. Kennedy said to the U.S. National Security Council in 1963. Since then, similar calls from both Republican and Democratic administrations for Europe to take responsibility for its own defense too often have been ignored, especially since the end of the Cold War.
For far too long, Western Europeans believed that war on the continent was no longer possible. Even today, some European politicians still seem convinced that the destructive forces ravaging Ukraine will never reach their territories.
This year, at least 20 out of 32 NATO members will spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense—a move in the right direction at a frustratingly slow pace. Poland reached this threshold more than 20 years ago and now leads the alliance with close to 4 percent. Others should follow our example.
Deterrence may be costly, but it is less costly than having to fight a war. The estimated cost of rebuilding Ukraine has reached almost half a trillion dollars and is growing by the day. The cost in human life and suffering is immeasurable. Spending more on defense, however, is only one part of what European NATO members need to do. We need to spend more effectively, and that means better coordination.
We should stop chasing the illusion of a joint European army. There is no political will among European Union member states to merge their national armed forces. We will not have one European army, but we can have better European armies. To start, we can set up a joint rapid reaction force—let’s call it the European Legion—of at least 5,000 troops, financed from the EU budget.
Second, we need to improve the mobility of military personnel and equipment. Since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine, we have learned how important transportation and military logistics are.
Third, Europe must make full use of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation, an instrument that allows member states to closely cooperate to raise defense production capacity, combine investments, and improve the operational readiness of our armed forces.
These are only three examples of what Europe can do to improve defense. None of it should come at the expense of our commitment to NATO and its unique role in the European security system. Instead of advocating for Europe’s “strategic autonomy,” as some EU leaders suggest, it is better to push for “strategic harmony” between the EU and NATO.
Widespread fears that changing political tides in Washington might severely strain trans-Atlantic relations are understandable. Influential U.S. politicians and commentators openly argue for Washington to focus primarily on its rivalry with Beijing, countering those who maintain that a global superpower can afford to be engaged in both Europe and East Asia.
If Washington truly believes that China is its “biggest geopolitical and intelligence rival” and “most significant long-term priority,” as CIA Director William Burns has said, then the United States’ network of alliances should be seen not as ballast needing to be cut but as an asset the main rival lacks and is only now trying to amass.
There is no shortage of evidence that Beijing has been the moving spirit behind a coalition of authoritarian countries long engaged in undermining the existing global order and those who stand for democratic values. China’s “limitless” partnership with Russia is one axis in a whole web of groupings. We know that Chinese exports of dual-use goods to Russia have increased significantly, that Russia has displaced Saudi Arabia as the main exporter of crude oil to China, and that Beijing is now an indispensable client for Russian gas. We see Iranian-made drones attacking Ukrainian cities, often assisted in the assault by North Korean artillery shells and ballistic missiles. Across Africa, South America, and other parts of the so-called global south, state-sponsored media based in China, Iran, and Russia freely spread their propaganda, often with the help of local regimes.
With the world on the brink of a global rivalry between two blocs—competing economically, militarily, and for humanity’s hearts and minds—even the mightiest superpower needs allies. For all its shortcomings, Europe remains the obvious one. Yes, Europe must invest more on security but not because of any imminent rupture in its relations with the United States. It must spend more so that the world’s democratic bloc can keep its influence and way of life.
Trump’s Return Would Transform Europe
Without Washington’s embrace, the continent could revert to an anarchic and illiberal past.