For ages, people have poked fun at European armies.
One of my favorites is about an Italian tank that has four reverse gears but only one for going forward.
The forward gear is, well, for when the enemy surprises you from behind.
Yet, the reality of defending Europe is serious business.
Since the Cold War ended, many European nations have found ways to reduce military budgets, focusing on welfare instead.
Every American president this century has tried to convince European leaders—especially NATO allies—to boost their defense spending.
Both political parties have approached this in various ways, attempting to warn or pressure them.
Despite this, European nations seem to be playing games with their budget numbers.
If you urge them to meet the NATO commitment of 2% of GDP on defense, they’ll often include military pensions to barely make the cut.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should’ve been the wake-up call, but it seems that was missed.
Beyond that invasion, Russia’s breaches of Polish airspace and military activities near the Baltic states were clear signs that something had to be done to stop Putin.
And, honestly, minimal defense spending isn’t going to deter him.
Proximity issues
The outcomes have varied.
It’s not surprising, I suppose, that countries closest to Russia, like Poland and the Baltic nations, are ramping up their spending—aiming for about 4% of their GDP this year.
Meanwhile, Spain and Ireland are lagging far behind, maybe because they’re farther from Russia or just dealing with their own internal chaos.
Last year, Spain spent a mere 1.28% of its GDP on defense, while Ireland managed only 0.24%. That’s just dismal.
This week, news surfaced that Europe has no plans to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, which is puzzling.
Seems like Belgium is among the few countries willing to step in.
However, many Americans, including President Trump, wonder why a country so far from Russia is expected to contribute more to Europe’s defense than Europe itself is prepared to do.
It’s a fair question, and one European leaders might find uncomfortable.
There are a lot of figures in Europe eager to make a name for themselves, perhaps echoing leaders from past eras.
British leaders from Boris Johnson to Keir Starmer seem to fancy themselves as the next Churchill, while Macron appears to want to channel Napoleon.
They’re all talking a big game, but are they truly ready for the challenge?
This week’s revelations give some food for thought.
“Betrayal” warning
French President Macron supposedly warned European leaders during a call that the U.S. might “betray” Ukraine.
A leaked transcript reported he cautioned about the possibility of U.S. abandonment over territorial negotiations.
While everyone seems focused on the term “betrayal”—which the French government denies was ever uttered—the more pressing issue is security guarantees.
If European nations are worried about Ukraine’s security in any peace deal, isn’t it time for proactive measures?
It makes sense that President Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian people would seek some assurance for their future, especially if it means giving up any territory to Russia.
There are areas of Ukraine still contested, as I previously pointed out.
Undoubtedly, there needs to be a security framework to deter Putin from trying to take more land in the future.
NATO membership is off the table for negotiations, but the idea of deploying European troops in Ukraine as a deterrent seems feasible.
If European leaders want to help end the conflict, taking concrete actions would be a great place to start.
Make a promise
Instead of just discussing the threat of Russian aggression, why aren’t Starmer, Macron, and their peers promising to stop it?
Political and military leaders across Europe have been warning about further aggression and possible conscription for years, yet their actions don’t seem to match their rhetoric.
Why won’t they commit to sending the thousands of troops needed in Ukraine once hostilities cease?
That’s a tough question.
Imagine if the U.S. believed it was on the brink of invasion, and yet its leaders acted as if everything was normal, with no changes in military readiness.
Interestingly, it looks like Britain, and possibly France, might be open to sending troops, but what about other European countries?
There are still worries regarding Germany’s military readiness, but Europe must find a solution moving forward.
A robust German army might be essential for a secure Europe.
Yet, for now, it seems most European countries are continuing with the status quo, waiting for the U.S. to step in again.
It’s high time Europe figured out how to shift into that forward gear.
