During Trump’s last term, the issue of NATO funding became one of the most resonant in relations between the United States and the European member states of the Alliance. He called on the latter to fulfill the commitments agreed at the NATO summit in 2014. At the time, only three Allies met the defense spending target of 2% of GDP: the United States itself, the United Kingdom and Greece. Thanks to pressure, in particular on the part of Trump, the number of “conscious” members of the North Atlantic Alliance increased to 23 countries.
Trump has argued that the US is shouldering a disproportionately large share of NATO’s security costs. While the US military budget was about 3.5% of GDP, many countries of the Old World did not even reach half that level. In particular, Germany, the first economy in Europe, spent less than 1.5% of GDP, which outraged the head of the “police country”. Now is discussed the possibility of increasing the target indicators of defense spending to 3% of GDP, which can be agreed at the NATO summit in June next year.
President Trump also insisted that member states not only increase overall defense spending, but also modernize military equipment and infrastructure. He emphasized that this is important for ensuring NATO’s operational readiness in the face of modern threats.
In his statements, Trump even suggested the possibility of reducing the US military presence in Europe if the allies do not fulfill their obligations. He called NATO “unfair” due to the fact that the USA, in his opinion, actually finances the security of many European countries.
These statements caused mixed reactions in Europe. Some countries, in particular, Poland and the Baltic states, reacting to the growth of geopolitical threats, actively increased their defense budgets. Germany planned to achieve defense spending of 1.5% of GDP by the current year.
The prospect of Trump’s return to the Oval Office has once again put before Europe a mirror of its dependence on the US in the defense sphere. Why are European countries in such a situation? This can be understood in retrospect by looking at history, where the United States played the role of not only an ally, but also a savior.
Suez Crisis, Decolonization: How Postwar Europe Lost Military Independence
Until the middle of the last century, the Old World was the center of world politics. The British Empire owned a quarter of the planet, France held a large part of Africa and Asia in its hands. But after the Second World War, the situation changed dramatically. The war exhausted Europe. Because of this, the metropolises could no longer maintain their colonies.
Meanwhile, new superpowers appeared on the world stage – the USA and the Soviet Union, which became the main competitors in the struggle for global influence. Against this background, many colonies began to gain independence.
As a result, Europe lost its leading status in world politics, and the order of forces in the world changed forever. European countries tried to adapt to the new reality, but their influence became much weaker than before the war.
The turning point in history was the Suez crisis of 1956. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, which was previously controlled by Britain and France. This caused the indignation of London and Paris, which together with Israel developed a plan for military intervention. In October 1956, Israeli forces invaded the Sinai Peninsula, and British and French forces began bombing Egypt to regain control of the canal.
However, the United States and the Soviet Union opposed this operation. The US condemned the actions of the allies, and the USSR threatened military force. Due to the threat of economic sanctions and the possible collapse of the pound sterling, Britain, France and Israel were forced to cease hostilities and withdraw troops.
The Suez crisis showed that European countries can no longer act independently without the support of the United States. This became a painful signal for Britain and France that their influence in the world has decreased. The event symbolized a new era in international relations – the era of dominance by the USA and the USSR.
So, after the Second World War, due to decolonization, European countries lost their global dominance. Britain lost its colonies, starting with India and Pakistan in 1947, then Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Asia. This was accompanied by economic challenges, as the colonies were important sources of resources and markets. France lost its colonies in Indochina and Algeria, which led to internal conflicts and a rethinking of its role in the world.
In the 1960s, France sought to assert its status through an independent defense strategy, including the creation of a nuclear arsenal. It was more a gesture of national pride than a real threat to the US or the USSR.
European countries focused on economic reforms and reconstruction after the war. They abandoned global ambitions and focused on regional cooperation, which led to the creation of the European Union.
The illusion of permanent peace and the idea of a “peace dividend”
In the 1970s, the policy of detente between the superpowers reduced tensions and influenced the defense strategy of European states. The threat of a large-scale war seemed less likely, so many countries cut military spending.
The World Trade Organization and the Helsinki Accords of 1975 created the illusion of permanent peace, which helped reduce defense spending. Politicians supported the idea of a “peace dividend” – the redirection of funds from the military sphere to economic and social development. Governments reduced the number of armies and switched to a system of voluntary service.
For example, in united Germany, the number of Bundeswehr decreased from 500,000 in 1990 to 180,000 military personnel in 2013. This made it possible to allocate significant funds for the modernization of infrastructure and the implementation of social programs.
A similar trend took place in Great Britain, where from 1991 to 2020, the number of armed forces was halved: from 301,000 to 153,000 people. The saved funds were invested in the development of the health care system, education and other important sectors of society.
In France, the number of military personnel decreased from 542,000 in 1991 to 304,000 in 2013. Thanks to this, the country was able to increase spending on social and economic initiatives.
Consequently, European countries believed in permanent peace and focused on economic reforms, modernization of industry and development of social programs, relegating defense issues to the background. Military budgets were shrinking, and investment in the latest defense technologies remained insufficient. This created vulnerabilities that became apparent in the following decades.
What the war in the Balkans demonstrated
In the 1990s, the armed conflicts in the Balkans showed Europe’s inability to act independently in the field of security, which led to dependence on NATO’s military support. This became a serious signal about the shortcomings of the defense policy, but did not change the course to reduce military spending.
European states continued to save on defense, which led to problems in ensuring national security and responding to new challenges – terrorism, hybrid threats and military aggression.
Thus, the policy of détente and the reduction of military spending have affected the defense resilience of Europe, creating dependence on foreign aid and limiting the ability to independently respond to crises. This had long-lasting consequences that continue to influence the security policies of European countries today.
If you want peace, prepare for war
Overall, since the end of the Cold War, defense spending by European NATO countries has fallen from around 3% of GDP to 1.3% in 2014. However, after 2014, against the background of new geopolitical threats, the tendency to reduce military budgets changed. Many European countries began to gradually increase defense spending.
And now, in the 21st century, a new challenge – Russia’s imperial aggression – forced the European elites to admit that the era of the “end of history” turned out to be a myth. Again, military power became the decisive factor. Although EU countries have begun to increase defense spending, decades of underfunding have left them far behind in technology, weaponry and preparedness for real threats.
When Donald Trump returns to power, Europeans will have to make a choice: continue to rely on the American umbrella, risking losing it, or begin the painful and expensive path to restoring their own defense capabilities. Will the Old World have enough will, resources and time for this? Europe, which for a long time sat in the place of a “passenger” in NATO, must now decide whether it is ready to stand on an equal footing with the United States.
IA “FACT” already highlighted prospects for the creation of a peacekeeping mission to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, in particular, French President Macron’s proposal to deploy up to 40,000 European troops along the contact line under the conditions of reaching agreements on a ceasefire. Of course, this would be an effective support for us, which would to some extent compensate for Europe’s vulnerability in security matters, which was formed during the last peaceful decades.
Tetyana Viktorova
