What would we – as Europeans – do if our security were threatened while our closest ally, the United States, was otherwise engaged?
By Radoslaw SIKORSKI
For years, I have taken every opportunity to call on the European Union and its member states to invest more in defence. When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his all-out invasion of Ukraine, I repeatedly asked (as a member of the European Parliament) what further proof we would need to recognise the threats facing all of Europe.
What would we – as Europeans – do if our security were threatened while our closest ally, the United States, was otherwise engaged? Today, we are faced with this situation. American officials are openly declaring that they do not intend to devote most of their time or resources to dealing with what they consider European issues. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the US has “other priorities to focus on.” I agree. The global superpower has global responsibilities, and the number of hot spots that could demand the attention of the US government seems only to be growing. In addition to the challenges in the Western Hemisphere, instability in the Middle East, and severe tensions between the two nuclear powers – India and Pakistan – there is also the overarching goal of redefining relations with China. Moreover, according to the official planning doctrine of the US Department of Defense, the US cannot fight more than one major war at a time.
The new US administration has clearly communicated its position. “We are here today to state directly and unequivocally that the grim strategic realities prevent the United States from focusing primarily on the security of Europe,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in Brussels this February.
And US Vice President JD Vance was even more blunt, declaring that “the entire security infrastructure of Europe … is subsidised by the United States of America”, even though it is in neither Europe’s nor America’s interest “for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States”. President Donald Trump himself has repeatedly accused Europe of “illegal exploitation” and “profiteering” by the US. Europeans may not like what we hear, but we cannot ignore it. We must be prepared for the US to wash its hands not only of Ukraine but of Europe as well. Sylvie Kauffmann of Le Monde recently argued: “Preparing for the worst is a safer bet than hoping for the best”. We can and must do both – hope and prepare. Trust, but verify.
Since Trump announced his presidential candidacy in 2015, there have been two schools of thought on how to interpret his words. Some argue that we should take him seriously, but not literally, while others urge us to do the opposite: take him literally, but not always seriously. I believe that the most reasonable and respectful approach is to take everything the president of the United States says both literally and seriously.
Given the current state of the world, this means that Europe faces an existential choice. We can enter the global game united, as a serious competitor, or we can condemn ourselves to marginalization.
Much has been done to become a serious competitor. Since 2016 – just before Trump’s first term – NATO members, excluding the US, have increased their annual defence spending by 98%, from $255 billion to $506 billion. Moreover, after three years of Putin’s war on Ukraine, the EU and its member states have shown a willingness to spend even more and to embrace a more collaborative, rational and effective approach to defence planning and procurement. The new common defence agreement between the EU and the UK is another step demonstrating this new strategic solidarity. Containing Russia is not beyond our reach. We do not need to match US military capabilities; rather, we need just enough to force Putin to reconsider his chances of winning in a confrontation with a united European community of democratic nation-states.
The people of Europe are clearly demanding that we develop a revitalized European defense posture. According to the European Commission, 71% of EU citizens believe that the bloc should strengthen its ability to produce military equipment, while 77% support a common defense and security policy. This gives European leaders a mandate to think and act boldly.
But how long will it take to restore peace in Ukraine and stability in Europe? I believe we must act on the basis of three assumptions.
First, we should see this as a war of a former imperial metropolis against what it considers a rebellious colony. History suggests that colonial wars usually take about a decade to conclude. Anything less than that should be considered a bonus.
Second, we must recognize that for the occupying power to enter into negotiations in good faith, it must come to the conclusion that the occupation was a mistake. It must recognize that the costs of war and of keeping the former colony subjugated outweigh any benefits the colony might bring.
Third, given the above, we must remember that colonial wars are usually ended by a different set of leaders than those who started the fighting.
Yes, boosting European defense capabilities while supporting Ukraine will cost money. Since the start of Russia’s war of aggression, the EU and its member states have provided more than $165 billion in support for Ukraine and its people. That is a significant sum, but it is still less than 1% of the combined GDP of EU member states (about $19 trillion). Of course, we can do more. And as we revitalize Europe’s defense, we must not forget why we are doing it: we are acting for our own security, not to undermine transatlantic relations, but to improve them. To avoid a strategic dilemma, we Europeans must be able to help the United States protect its allies by taking on our fair share of the security burden.
