NATO is Falling Apart; the EU is Faltering – Good!

Image: M-SUR / shutterstock.com 

Both organizations need to reinvent themselves and break free from US influence.

NATO's crisis didn't begin with Trump's disruptive policies. Trump's wish to take over Greenland is merely the latest absurd turn in an increasingly illegitimate, imperialistic US policy. Previous presidents have also turned away from Europe and toward other regions. Barack Obama's ‘Pivot to Asia’ and the NATO dispute over Bush's Iraq War illustrate these divisions. The signals were certainly heard in Europe; however, over the past decades the political will and unity within Europe to take effective steps to break free from the dependencies of the US were insufficient.

Trump's demand to increase military spending to five per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) should already have been a wake-up call for Europeans. A sober analysis of the defence weaknesses of the European part of NATO quickly reveals that the problem isn't a lack of funds. According to NATO, European NATO countries have spent around $3.5 trillion during the last decade. That is not too little. The problem is that these resources are being spent in typical European parochialism—in each individual country, without a convincing common strategy. The result: Waste occurs through duplication in arms procurement. The arms manufacturers in the various countries are rejoicing.

European governments have submitted to Trump's dictates instead of focusing on their own strengths and finding a united response. To keep Trump happy and supportive of Ukraine, the European NATO countries signalled their willingness to soon allocate the desired five per cent of their GDP to military spending and, of course, to buy weapons from the US. The line of European sycophants to Washington, spearheaded by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, is growing ever longer.

Now, with Trump's announcements of wishing to annex Greenland, with the blatant US attack on an ally, the realization seems to have dawned that this supposed partner in Washington cannot be relied upon. Europeans should clearly distance themselves from the US's gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean, from its threats against other countries, from its search for spheres of influence, and from its colonial ambitions.

It is time to act to achieve European independence by building a European defence alliance. Such an alliance should not be guided by geopolitical rivalries or imperialist ambitions cultivated in various forms by the USA, China, and Russia. Instead of fatalistically looking to Washington and waiting for the next blunder by the chaotic president, European independence or autonomy is essential. This would strengthen Europe's position vis-à-vis both the Trump administration and Russia. This is not a new idea. As early as 1978, the European Parliament published its first report which called for better cooperation on defence within the EU.

Military experts constantly emphasize that Europe is militarily inferior to Russia without the US. Undoubtedly, gaps exist in some areas (for example, air defence, reconnaissance and satellite technology, and cyber defence). Nevertheless, it is wrong to belittle Europe in comparison to the Russian armed forces. In the more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia's army has proven militarily largely unsuccessful. Only through the brutal destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure and the use of hundreds of thousands of soldiers as cannon fodder have the Russian armed forces achieved limited territorial gains. How could this army possibly prevail against a united and functioning European defence alliance? The decisive factor is European unity. But even in the support for Ukraine, which is also intended to safeguard European interests, the Europeans are not united. The further away from Russia's border, the less willing they are to commit themselves to defending much-vaunted European values.

Instead of continuing to invest vast sums of money for the armed forces independently in each European country and thus wasting money, a consistent European defence concept is needed. Talk of war capabilities distracts from the real necessities of defence. Are the warning shots from Washington now loud enough to initiate a European security and defence policy that truly deserves the name "European"? After the experiences of recent decades, even after the so-called “Zeitenwende”, doubts remain.

Does the EU need to learn the language of power?

The EU's economic growth, long anaemic, continues to stagnate. Dependencies are increasing. Modern technology is imported from the US, critical minerals come from China, and fossil fuels are imported from autocratically ruled countries. Europe remains provincialized. Mario Draghi, the former head of the European Central Bank, identified the EU's lack of competitiveness and low productivity as its weaknesses. But can the economic and military race with the US and China truly be a viable strategy for the EU? Should Europe really become the third major power in this geopolitical competition?

Europe doesn't need to learn the language of power (despite increasing claims that it does), and certainly not the language of military power. World politics doesn't need another schoolyard bully. Humility is called for, and alternative economic models are needed, instead of the ambition to act as a third geopolitical player. The EU doesn't have to choose between the hyper-capitalist (now imperialist) USA and authoritarian China or even aspire to catch up with these two superpowers.

Of course, Washington's economic policy, with its protectionist tariffs, has consequences, as does China's policy of gaining global influence, if necessary, even by disrupting essential supply chains. Research shows that a hegemon is always tempted to use economic leverage to its advantage. Trump is a fervent advocate of this leverage and China does not shy away from using it too. Dependent countries will never be able to completely counteract this leverage, not even through treaties. Therefore, instead of engaging in a competition for spheres of influence and attempting to do so with the language of power, Europe's strengths, such as its trade instruments, should be used intelligently. Europe is not paralyzed.

Why shouldn't Europe strive for a middle-power status (as outlined by the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Davos)? Middle powers can best position themselves and pursue their own interests in the current environment by cooperating as equals with other middle powers, especially those from the Global South. This is not just about free trade, but above all about fair trade. To reduce its dependence on external powers, Europe should also transform its industrial base and focus on a high share of renewables. It should strengthen its internal market. If it wants to defend its values, it is crucial to build a strong welfare state (like the Scandinavian countries of the past). This is the best foundation for maintaining political autonomy from major powers, limiting their influence, and defending democracy against right-wing tendencies.

Related articles:

The US National Security Strategy Returns to the World of Power Politics (3-minute read)

Is Europe Dreaming of Colonial Era Dominance? (3-minute read)

Exclusive Geopolitics and Its Costs In Terms of Peace Policy (3-minute read)

Herbert Wulf is a Professor of International Relations and former Director of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC). He is presently a Senior Fellow at BICC, an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen, Germany, and a Research Affiliate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. He serves on the Scientific Council of SIPRI.