Going it Alone?

• Author: Kramer, Steven Philip
• Position: European military

For three-quarters of a century, a highly developed continent composed of sovereign nations put its defense in the hands of someone else. In practice, European defense depended on the United States, although this relationship, as embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was supposed to be mutual. One has to go back to the time of the Delian League to find a historical precedent. The relationship was based on several assumptions shared on both sides of the Atlantic:

* That the Soviet Union was an existential threat to Europe and that Russia remained a serious threat.

* That Europe was vulnerable and could not defend itself alone.

* That the United States and Europe constituted an Atlantic community that shared basic liberal democratic values.

* That the United States could be trusted to defend Europe.

These assumptions are no longer broadly shared for many reasons. But most important has been the impact of Donald Trump and his presidency. Its "America First" pronouncements raised the question of whether the United States would always remain committed to defending Europe (although congressional support for NATO remained strong). It was not uncommon to hear people in the Atlantic security community say that a second Trump administration would mean U.S. withdrawal from NATO. The Trump administration made Europeans question whether the United States and Europe shared the same values. Certainly, the election of Joe Biden was hailed by most Europeans, but who can be sure that the political movement embodied by Trump would not return? The Republican Party still seems to be the party of Trump, and it's not clear whether or not it will stay that way. How long are European leaders and populations willing to live with the possibility that a "Trumpist" government will return? Even if this does not happen, the legacy of the last administration's policies and the perceived need for Republicans to support them to avoid primary challenges has left a significant impact. Americans may not fully appreciate how much damage the Trump administration did to faith and trust in America--not only on the part of European leaders but also on European publics.

The result of the last four years has been a return of the idea that Europe needs to be capable of defending itself in case the United States can no longer be counted on--an idea promoted by French president Emmanuel Macron. Shouldn't Europe have its own grand strategy and the means to pursue it? In other words, why shouldn't Europe, an economic "superpower," be a superpower in all respects? If the world is not prepared to follow Europe's example as a new form of post-modernist political organization, shouldn't Europe accept the need to play in the league of global superpowers and develop its own self-reliant system of defense?

Most of the great security issues Europe faces do not require vast armed forces; the industrial age military capabilities that have served as effective deterrence may still be necessary but certainly are not sufficient. Some issues call for solutions that do not involve armored brigades. For example, the significant migrant problem requires only small, specialized military forces and, of course, a much broader collection of actions across governments, individually and collectively. China also poses a variety of serious security challenges to Europe. It is not clear to Europeans whether it is just a robust competitor or constitutes a security threat as the debate over 5G demonstrates. China is not a military problem for Europe in the traditional sense: no one fears a Chinese army sweeping across the steppes like Genghis Khan or Tamburlaine. But the risks associated with key acquisitions of ports, critical infrastructure, and advanced technology firms may be even more dangerous--and difficult to defend against. Finally, the rising tensions between the United States and China make Europeans question whether they share the same strategic interests as the United States. Does Europe want to be caught up in a new Cold War between the United States and China?

The principal defense risk Europe faces is Russia, no longer the USSR but still a serious problem. Without a threatening Russia, there would be little need for NATO, at least not in anything like its current form. Therein lies a paradox: with the end of Communism, it would seem that Russia's interests lay in a close and cordial relationship with Europe, which would facilitate its economic development and strengthen its social and cultural resurgence. But Russian president Vladimir Putin seems to have returned to the vision of Nicholas I--"Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality"--with the difference that Putin is far more interventionist than Nicholas. Russia's appeal is once again Slavophilism and religion--although that is a multi-edged sword since Russia contains significant Muslim minorities--and Putin's aura as a defender of the "White Race." Putin is thus a supporter of tin-pot dictators like Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko, a model for potentates like Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, the darling of the European Far Right.

Russia's great economic resources are gas and oil, whose days are numbered. The pace of development of alternative energy sources, and particularly the adoption of clean energy in Europe, will have striking implications for Russia as well as other oil producers. Putin has allied Russia to China, defying the basic rules of geopolitics. Surely a border separating a thinly populated...