Latest news with #European-only
Asia Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Asia Times
NATO faces make-or-break decision on a post-US future
NATO is facing a pivotal moment in its history. Ahead of its June 24-25 summit in The Hague, NATO is weighing up whether it can truly continue to count on US support (and membership), whether it will become a European-only organization, or whether it has a future at all. This suggests a massive shift for the intergovernmental organization that sits at the heart of defense and security for Europe, and beyond. The past year has changed everything. Trump's anti-NATO rhetoric has become increasingly vociferous and disrespectful, undermining both the organization itself, and the other 31 NATO member countries, which include Germany, France, Canada, Turkey, the UK, Sweden and Norway. Add to this the Trump administration's embrace of international isolationism, and the potential, consequential loss of clear US backing for the alliance, all of which highlight the organization's historical dependence on the US. This is what makes the June 2025 summit so critical. It is a make-or-break opportunity to unveil a plan for NATO's wholesale transformation, or an event conclusively marking its obsolescence. The plan itself is simple: build – or rebuild – NATO as a possible Europe-only endeavor. If this plan becomes reality, historians of European security and defense may spot earlier parallels for NATO with the original Western European Union (WEU). The WEU was the European defense security structure established in 1954 under the Paris Accords, which helped to redefine relations with West Germany. Ultimately subsumed into both NATO and EU governance structures, the WEU's prime goal at the time was to bolster the European content of the Atlantic alliance. There is a deep irony in Trump's bluster about NATO states paying more towards their defense. The US has, for decades, been sanguine at best, and hostile at worst on almost every form of European defense autonomy, from basic operationss established by the EU to more ambitious strategies. Instead, the US has insisted almost exclusively on increased defense spending by other NATO members, improved interoperability between the various national forces, but all 'in furtherance of a US-dominated alliance', rather than a more authentically US-European approach to safeguarding both European and American interests, according to Max Bergman, a former senior adviser to the US State Department. What is the future of NATO? If the US is now reducing its involvement in NATO, or abdicating entirely, the only option for NATO is to reduce its dependence on the US, and in doing so, to focus more on Europe. A clear mandate is needed to ensure that being US-less does not render NATO itself useless. Without a mandate, opportunistic space would quickly open up for an aggressive Russia. Trump made clear early in his first administration that he was no fan of NATO, and argued that its funding structure should no longer overburden the US. In his second administration, Trump has been even clearer, has variously threatened to pull US troops from NATO joint exercises, reduce US security commitments to NATO as a whole, remove some or all of the 80,000 US troops on permanent rotation in Europe and vastly reduce the US's contribution to NATO's central budget of US$5 billion. These threats are now repeated routinely by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration. This has profoundly rattled NATO as an institution and its individual member states. As NATO's own records show, from 2023 onward, there have been major increases in European defense spending. But the opportunity to keep spending commitments high, as well as overhaul the organzsation to meet Ukraine's demands and defense opportunities for the EU as a whole – which could have been nailed onto NATO's 75th anniversary summit in 2024 – did not materialize. There are pros and cons of a new Europe-focused approach for NATO, and these will work themselves out in the final five-to-ten-year plan, which is being prepared ahead of the June summit. For some, building a European defense mission within NATO is an opportunity to plot a new and more sustainable course for NATO, rather than trying to shore up an expanding US-shaped hole. Spending increases that reduce NATO's perceived helplessness, or reliance on the US, may also be a benefit. For others, the removal of US command and control, hardware, software, intelligence and much more from NATO is a futile endeavor that will leave the organization in pieces at best, and present Russia with a golden opportunity for continued eastern aggression at worst. The signals from Washington remain confusing. Trump's suggestion of a sudden and total US withdrawal from European defense was tempered in April by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's suggestion that Trump remained supportive of NATO but also demanding expanded spending commitments (these demands vary from 2.5% to 5% of GDP), and for other members to take on far greater responsibility for developing NATO's capabilities. Many members now support the emerging 'coalition of the willing', led by France and Britain, to underwrite a force and secure a post-conflict deal for Ukraine. In figuring out the current provision of military force, including logistics and intelligence capacities in addition to air, land and sea forces, NATO members are aiming to remove the US's presence and fill the vacuum with European assets over a decade. The task is colossal, and not without risks. NATO does not want an overnight abdication of the US, as it currently relies far too heavily upon US capabilities, such as long-range precision missiles, and crucially, heavy-lift aircraft, which are vital in shifting armored forces around the continent rapidly. NATO also wants a clear plan, which new member Finland has emphasized as crucial, to prevent an abrupt and disjointed transition that Russia could exploit. A new vision must be set out by the end of June in order to deal sensibly with ongoing defense spending commitments, reworked governance structures, and possible planned responses to the war in Ukraine. Scrapping NATO is unnecessary and leaves Europe – and the US, if the White House could but see far enough ahead – open to innumerable threats and consequences. Even without the US, NATO provides a valuable structure for security cooperation in Europe. Strengthening European capabilities within NATO, rather than creating an entirely new defense structure, makes sense. Amelia Hadfield is head of Department of Politics, University of Surrey This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Sky News
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Volodymyr Zelenskyy says any peacekeeping force for Ukraine without US troops would be 'major mistake'
It would be a "major mistake" to deploy British, French and other allied troops to guarantee Ukraine's security without involving the US, the Ukrainian president has told Sky News. Volodymyr Zelenskyy even said such a move would "give Russia an advantage", signalling that he did not believe a European-only option to deter future Russian aggression in the wake of any potential ceasefire deal with Moscow would be strong enough. The president also had a warning for London and other NATO member states to spend now on strengthening their militaries or risk finding themselves in Ukraine's position - at war and forced to invest its whole budget on defence. Mr Zelenskyy was speaking after a meeting in Kyiv with David Lammy, the UK foreign secretary. 1:12 As the two men sat down for their discussion, though, Sky News asked the Ukrainian leader whether ceasefire talks with Russia would need to start in the coming weeks. Speaking in English, Mr Zelenskyy said: "First of all, we have to manage our meeting and our own plans with the US, Europe, European leaders, our partners. "We have to have a common agenda between us, then share it even with the enemy. In any way step by step." One possible step that is being discussed by the UK, France and a number of other European allies is the potential deployment of an international force to Ukraine to provide security guarantees that Russia would not attack again following a peace deal. It is still only an idea but is increasingly being talked about. At the news conference following the meeting with Mr Lammy, Mr Zelenskyy was asked whether he believed European militaries alone had the strength to deter Russia or whether only an international force that included the United States would be credible. The president, speaking in Ukrainian, said: "When we talk about this, is Europe enough? No. Because this isn't just a matter of numbers. It's about sharing responsibility and ensuring security guarantees." He continued: "This cannot be pursued without the involvement of the United States. Doing so would be a major mistake. It could very well be Russia's desire to see Europe defending and supporting Ukraine without the US. That would give Russia an advantage, and I believe it could amount to a geopolitical and strategic win for them." He added: "When we talk about security guarantees, we need the United States as the primary guarantor of security, alongside European countries. The European Union plus the United Kingdom - these European nations are crucial for us." Donald Trump has said he will end the war in Ukraine, though he has not explained how. He plans to speak with Vladimir Putin and his team is talking to Mr Zelensky's side. Even if the US did agree to contribute to an international security force as part of a ceasefire deal, it would still be a huge undertaking for the UK and other European partners. Analysts question whether Britain's military would be able to take on the role in a credible way without a serious increase in defence spending and regrowing its shrunken forces. Mr Trump has said NATO allies should spend 5% of GDP on defence - more than double the level that the UK invests. Asked whether he thought the UK and other European allies needed to increase their military expenditure, Ukraine's president said: "I don't know how much you need to contribute - two percent, three percent. But listen, we are spending our entire budget right now. "I think that's your answer. If you don't want to be spending your entire budget on defence in the future, invest the necessary percentage today and take steps to strengthen your defence now."
