Europe is facing a particularly vulnerable situation. The Trump presidency has been disruptive, even to those with less faint hearts. Currently, the United States’ political will regarding NATO is at a minimum, and many wonder if the Atlantic Alliance will survive this new era. Suddenly, both NATO and Europe, as well as Ukraine, the country attacked by Putin, have been marginalized in the negotiations Trump is leading directly with the Russian autocrat, marking a new emerging order anchored in great powers. This is the status Putin had fervently desired, and the new White House tenant seems willing to grant it. In the background, Chinese strategists rejoice at the dismantling of the West, aware of the strong dependence Moscow has acquired during the Ukraine War on Beijing. China advances steadily on the international board of its GO game at the planetary level, where its adversaries weaken daily through their own mistakes.
Although it’s too early to tell, Trump’s erratic tariff policy, the impulse to boost stock markets, fossil energies, and technological platforms might yield positive results. However, maintaining the sophisticated fabric of global alliances that has been key to American hegemony since World War II will be more challenging for Washington. This applies not only to European countries, which may have just begun to realize what can happen, but also to countries in other regions. The BRICS, under strong Chinese influence, continue to grow, with Malaysia and Indonesia, two major Muslim countries alienated by Netanyahu’s operations in Gaza and the West Bank, being the latest to join.
And what about Europe? Europe is helpless. Without the warranty of the American nuclear and military umbrella, its vulnerability is extreme. European countries urgently need a defense policy that includes both strategic dimension and tactics. In the first case, it’s necessary for the possibility of extending French nuclear protection to Germany and other countries to become a reality. Great Britain should be part of this crucial decision for the continent, which would radically change its recent history.
A Franco-British nuclear deterrence extended to the rest of the continent would be the first and essential step to guarantee the defense of Europeans. While it could be questioned whether this is viable with a politically fragmented France, under the growing weight of Marine Le Pen, it’s difficult to think that the unique tense of strategically guarding Germany isn’t attractive to the French national right. The question remains whether Germans would be willing to give their nuclear sovereignty in favor of France and Great Britain in exchange for their safety.
The second necessary decision is to share military capacities and establish a common defense policy, with a European army. However, these objectives sound utopian. As far back as 1998, at the Saint-Malo Summit, European countries committed to a rapid intervention force of 60,000 troops. Josep Borrell, at the beginning of his term four years ago, proposed having 5,000 troops, something that has not been achieved either. The EU creates new organs, elaborates programs, and promises future initiatives, filling the rhetoric on the need to contribute to NATO’s deterrence and defense initiatives, increase investments, relax regulations, solve industrial fragmentation, and facilitate military mobility.
Neither the EU nor a European pillar in NATO seems feasible; only the governments of the main countries are trained to adopt the necessary decisions. However, instead of a common will, what we observe is a “save who can” attitude, with everyone looking out for themselves while trying to approach the new master as closely as possible. The real will of defense among governments and citizens is lacking, as is the willingness to increase defense budgets.
Among all governments, the Spanish stands out for spending the least on defense, a mere 1.32% compared to Poland’s 4.7%. Meanwhile, the president of the Government continues to demand that the EU substantially increase funds for defense, even reassessing those destined for other community objectives. The European situation resembles that of a balancer who, while losing support, dedicates himself to singing “Oh me of mine!” It’s not a window of opportunity we’re facing, but rather a survival skylight.
Europe’s Defense Dilemma
The need for a unified European defense policy has never been more pressing. With the United States’ commitment to NATO seemingly wavering, European countries must consider their options carefully. The idea of a Franco-British nuclear deterrence extended to the rest of the continent is an intriguing one, but its viability is uncertain. The creation of a European army, sharing military capacities, and establishing a common defense policy are essential steps towards guaranteeing the defense of Europeans. However, these objectives are still far from being achieved, and the lack of a common will among European governments and citizens hinders progress.
A Call to Action
European governments must recognize the urgency of the situation and work towards a unified defense policy. This includes increasing defense budgets, relaxing regulations, and facilitating military mobility. The EU’s tendency to create new organs and elaborate programs is not enough; concrete actions and decisions are needed. The Spanish government’s call for the EU to increase funds for defense is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Europeans must come together to address their vulnerability and ensure their defense, lest they fall prey to the whims of great powers. The time for action is now, and the fate of Europe hangs in the balance.