By Phillips Payson O’Brien
Monday, November 11, 2024
Europeans should pay Donald Trump the compliment of
believing what he does and says, not what they desperately want to hear. He has
clearly indicated that he wants the United States out of the Ukraine war as
soon as possible. Both the president-elect and his most important supporter,
Elon Musk, have reportedly
been in frequent contact with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Vice President–elect J. D. Vance has outlined a “peace” deal
with Ukraine that would serve Russian interests. American aid to Ukraine, which
has been vital to the beleaguered country’s ability to resist Russia’s ongoing
invasion, could stop not long after Trump is inaugurated. European nations must
accept this reality and make their own plans—not just to support Ukraine in its
existential fight but also to protect their own security as America’s global
role shrinks.
Perhaps the best that Ukraine and its supporters can hope
for is that Trump doesn’t walk away from NATO and allows European states to
purchase U.S. weapons for Ukraine. This minimal position might represent a
victory of sorts for Europeans who believe in democracy and the transatlantic
alliance—but it would still signal a historical break. The United States will
likely stop leading the global opposition to Russian aggression, and perhaps
stop caring about the results of the largest war in Europe since 1945. Indeed,
the president of the United States will be closer personally to the head of
Europe’s largest dictatorship than to any of the continent’s democratically
elected leaders.
Those leaders should have started preparing for another
Trump presidency long ago. They had
been warned. But for the past year many Europeans have been surviving on
hope. Surely the American people won’t vote for Trump, particularly after
the January 6 insurrection. The prudent assumption now is that the U.S.
will no longer guarantee Europe’s security from Russia and other threats.
Leaders should envisage a world where NATO no longer exists—or where the United
States is no longer the leading force in the alliance.
In some ways, this is more scary psychologically than in
practice. Europe—which is to say, the democratic countries enmeshed in
institutions such as NATO and the European Union—has the economic and
technological resources to underwrite a serious defense effort. It has a large
and educated enough population to staff modern armed forces. It also has some
strong and growing military capabilities. For instance, European states either
have received or will receive in the coming years as many as 600 F-35 fighters—the
most advanced and capable aircraft in the world. Such a force could dominate
the skies against a clearly inferior Russian opponent.
Yet Europe also has many weaknesses. It has developed a
shockingly large number of military-hardware systems but then only builds a
small number of each. This boutique way of addressing military capability has
been exacerbated by a weakness in investing in logistics and a limited ability
to produce supplies and equipment quickly and reliably enough to sustain a war
effort.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022
prompted a lot of dramatic talk. The continent had supposedly reached a turning
point—a Zeitenwende, in the phrase of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. But
Europe has frittered away much of the past two and a half years, making the
smallest and most incremental of changes even as a grotesque war raged to the
east; even as Russian forces regularly attacked civilian targets; even as
military technology, particularly relating to drone systems, raced forward.
European defense spending has only crept up. Even now, a number of NATO states
fail to meet the alliance’s agreed-upon target of spending at least 2 percent
of their GDP on defense. The United States, even after a significant decline in
defense spending after the War on Terror, spends 3.5
percent. Two percent—a standard set in 2014, when European states felt far
more secure than they currently do—won’t cut it now.
Scaling up defense systems quickly will be difficult, but
it is essential. In the meantime, the highest priority from the European
perspective should be to keep Ukraine supplied and in the fight in case Trump
pulls the plug on American military support for Kyiv. Europe can provide more
ammunition and more ground-based air-defense equipment. It can give Ukraine
long-range weapons, such as German-made Taurus cruise missiles.
Just as important, European democracies can work with
Ukraine to upgrade and expand its drone capacity—and in doing so help establish
that industry elsewhere in Europe. Europe and even the United States have much
to learn from Ukraine about unmanned aerial vehicles. The innovation cycle in
Ukraine is quick; major advances take mere months or even just weeks. In this
dynamic environment, where homegrown Ukrainian technology looms so large, few
Western systems are of much use if sent whole. What Ukraine needs is the
ability to mass-produce the drone technology that its engineers develop,
working with European partners. That will require specialized components and
equipment—and Europe can help with that.
If the United States abandons Ukraine, European states
can start taking steps that the Biden administration, in its excess of caution,
did not allow. The four most powerful states in Europe today—the U.K., France,
Germany, and Poland—could give Ukraine their blessing to attack any Russian
military targets. After all, Russia is using its weapons—and those provided by
its allies, such as Iran, to attack targets in Ukraine; the American refusal to
let Ukraine use Western systems against military infrastructure in Russia
itself makes no sense.
European countries could go still further, by openly
deploying their forces at least to western Ukraine. They could take over
air-defense responsibilities—shooting down Russian missiles and drones without
directly killing Russian soldiers. European forces could also openly assist in
training Ukrainian forces in Ukraine and assist with air defense and training.
Moves like these will reassure the Ukrainian people that they are not alone if
the U.S. withdraws—and that their future is in Europe.
To be sure, the continent suffers from a
collective-action problem. French President Emmanuel Macron asked this week,
“The question we, as Europeans, must ask ourselves, is: Are we ready to defend
the interests of Europeans?” Detractors might ask why he was raising the issue
only now. In Germany, Scholz’s government appears on the verge of collapse.
Even if it survives, it likely lacks the boldness to move decisively to help
Ukraine.
And yet the greatest obstacle is a mental one. After
decades of expecting the United States to act wisely and forcefully in defense
of the broader democratic world, Europe needs to start thinking and acting on
its own and in its own interests. Trump’s return means that things previously
inconceivable must be faced. And in Ukraine, a new Europe can be born.
No comments:
Post a Comment