The European Union is preparing for what was unthinkable—American withdrawal from NATO.
They have been spurred into action not just by Donald Trump’s offer to Vladimir Putin to “do what you want” with any NATO member who fails to devote two percent of their GDP to defence.
No, Europeans detect 1—a growing undercurrent of isolationism; 2- an American perception that the biggest threat to their national interests lie in Asia; 3- that Americans feel that Europeans have taken advantage of American military largesse for too long and 4- Even the greatest military power in the history of the world can’t fight a two-front war in Asia and Europe.
None of the above concerns take into account the many benefits America derives from membership of NATO. And the fact is, that Americans, especially MAGA Republicans, are in no mood to listen.
That is why this week the EU launched its European Defense Industry Strategy. At the moment the US supplies about half of the armaments required by its European allies. If Europe is to stand alone then it needs an armaments industry to supplies its troops.
Launching the EDI Strategy, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on EU members to spend at least half of their defense procurement budgets on European-produced weaponry.
To encourage national defense ministries to “buy European,” the commission is dangling a few carrots. For a start, they are offering to exempt ministries from paying VAT on EU-made guns and bullets.
They are also establishing a “High Level Defense Industry Group” to help coordinate procurement programmes and an organisation to sell the increased defense production to third countries.
And finally, to further encourage the growth of an EU defense industry, the commission plans to partly finance this growth in advance by pre-sales to non-EU armies, air forces and navies.
But there are problems with this plan. For a start most defence planners agree that if America withdrew from NATO that the Europeans—and possibly Canadians as well– best course of action would be to simply move into the NATO positions formerly held by the Americans.
This is because of the past 75 years NATO has developed elaborate and successful command and control systems and lines of communication. Why re-invent the wheel. And, it is all well and good to have more weapons, but Europe also needs tried and test systems to deploy them effectively.
The next problem is that not all members of the EU are members of NATO. Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, and Malta are EU members but not in NATO. Iceland, Norway, Britain, Canada, Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Turkey are members of the NATO alliance but not in the EU.
Ukraine, is included in the planned European Defense Industry Strategy but is neither a member of the EU or NATO.
Britain is, of course, one of the most important components in any European-only defense system who is not a member of the EU. The Royal Navy would almost certainly have to assume most of the responsibility for guarding the North Sea, Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap, the English Channel and the approaches to the Channel. Britain also has the second largest defense budget within NATO.
Most important of all, if Europe is to have any kind of nuclear umbrella it needs Britain. The UK has an estimated 250 nuclear warheads, most of them situated at the tips of Trident II missiles which can be launched from its four Vanguard-class submarines.
The French have another 250. And since 2010 Britain and France have been cooperating in the development and production of nuclear warheads. Of course, 500 warheads is less than a tenth of the size of the Russian arsenal. But it is conceivable that Europe can develop a minimum deterrence policy. After all, at the height of the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese held off Moscow with only 300 warheads.
What is inconceivable, is a European defense system without Britain.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain". To subscribe to his email alerts on world affairs click here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
David Warren
David Allen
Steve Trevethan
John Waller
Vince Thompson
36 Comments
Might there be positives from a radical change to NATO?
1) A reduction of U S world domination attitudes and actions?
2) More opportunities for European, including Britain, engineering skills etc.?
3) Less involvement in disastrous US self-seeking attacks such as Libya, Afghanistan, Grenada etc?
4) Less doctrinaire, better relationships with Russia and China?
5) Access to cheaper Russian gas? (Nordstream?)
6) More support for an equitable solution to the problems of the Palestinians?
Steve, 1) to 4) agreed. 5) No. Solar and wind please. 6) Agreed 100%. Balfour Declaration created the problem. UK has responsibility to solve it.
How do you see better relations with Russia and China. With no US to worry about Putin has no constraints to go for Georgia Moldova Baltic’s and the rest of Ukraine. Putin will not need good relations
With a weakened Europe one under Putin’s thumb America would have China on one side Putin on the other. Then US would face a possible war on two fronts. It would be a strategic disaster if the US left NATO. Their best interest would be to stay in it.
@Steve Trevethan
Point 1- Yes about world domination issue. There would be more burden-sharing between because Europe and America share many of the same values. But at the same time, as Europe’s military establishment grows so will its political power. This will inevitably create conflicts between Washington and Brussels and between Brussels and Moscow and Beijing. History has taught us that European politicians are as guilty of the sin of hubris as any other world leader.
Point 2- You would think that except for one thing: My article is about an EU initiative. Britain is no longer a member of the EU.
Point 3- Refer back to my answer to point one.
Point 4- Ditto
Point 5- No, because Russia is the greatest threat to European freedoms. By buying Russian gas we finance that threat.
Point 6- I agree.
Why don’t the EU NATO countries simply agree to spend 2% of their GDP on defence as they’re supposed to? It will be a lot less expensive than having to develop their own totally independent defence capability.
” the EU commission is dangling a few carrots. For a start, they are offering to exempt ministries from paying VAT on EU-made guns and bullets.”
Any organisation which is VAT registered doesn’t actually pay VAT unless they make a commercial profit. I doubt that defence ministries do. They claim back their VAT spending. So how can this be a “carrot”? Am I missing something?
The UK has dropped to third in NATO defence spending, having been overtaken by Germany last year in cash terms (the UK still spends more as a % of GDP). This is long overdue of course as Germany was historically one of the most egregious examples of a European NATO member failing to pay their way.
The problem with a dependence on the US for the supply of military equipment goes beyond the initial procurement of hardware, as it leads to an ongoing dependence for spares, upgrades and maintenance support. That could affect our ability to fight a long war if the US was unwilling to support us, or unable to due to a war in the pacific taking all of their capacity.
Peter Martin. VAT does not work like that. You have to make taxable outputs to claim back input VAT and an organisation’s exposure or not to VAT is not related to their profits. As the supply of defence is not [yet] a taxable output the MoD will not be able to claim back input VAT on its purchases of shells, uniforms, diesel etc. Ministry budgets are set such as input tax incurred is a charge to their budget. In a domestic context you could argue that this does not matter too much as any extra spend on these items incurring VAT will also produce an extra receipt for the government from the VAT received. However the argument is weaker when you are incurring VAT on items purchased abroad. When Chancellor Barber introduced VAT to the UK he said that it was a simple tax – a remark whose truth value is similar to “there were no parties in Downing Street”; “when we leave the EU all the cards will be in our hands” and “government debt is falling”.
“Balfour Declaration created the problem. UK has responsibility to solve it.”
The Balfour declaration was made during WW1. We’ll never know just how it would have turned out had there been no WW2 but it can hardly have been any worse. Unless we say that Britain started WW2, we can argue that others have an even greater responsibility to solve it than us.
In any case, the declaration was made at a time when the British ruling class felt an entitlement to be able to give away something that was not theirs and had never been legitimately theirs. If we are to learn the lessons of history we should keep out of it and adopt a position of strict neutrality. Recognise the Palestinian state too, but leave the solution, if there is one, to the UN.
This has to be the UN as a whole rather than just the so-called “security council”.
@ Richard,
You’re right insofar as you effectively pointed out that I should have said “value added” rather than commercial profit.
However, I don’t agree that the MOD won’t be able to claim back its VAT on purchases. A quick Google turns up:
“Under section 41(3) of the VAT Act 1994, government departments and NHS bodies are eligible to claim refunds of VAT incurred on certain outsourced services purchased for their statutory, non-business activities. This VAT would otherwise be irrecoverable.”
When we were in the EU, my company and others didn’t have to pay VAT on purchases from EU countries. We had to report the figures quarterly. Now we do, to HMRC, via the importer (usually it is the courier who does the customs clearance) but then claim VAT back in the same way as for domestic purchases. So it doesn’t really make any difference.
Presumably it still works the same way for EU countries.
I’m old enough to remember when Russia was THE bogeyman and how a nuclear shield was needed to stop the masses of Russian tanks pouring, almost unopposed, into western Europe; we are trying to create the the same hysteria again..If Russia is too weak to win a conventional war against Ukraine (a country ideal for ‘blitzkrieg’ tank warfare) they will not do too well against a united Europe with or without the USA..
If the US leaves NATO… do not be surprised if many of the americanophiles, who supported Brexit, campaign for the UK to also leave…
@Peter Martin
Ilan Pappe, a remarkable Israeli Historian wrote: ‘The moment British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour gave the Zionist movement his promise in 1917 to establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine, he opened the door to the endless conflict that would engulf the country and its people. In his pledge he made in his government’s name, Balfour promised to protect the aspirations on the non-Jewish population – a strange reference to the vast native majority – but the declaration clashed precipitately with both the aspirations and natural rights of the Palestinians for nationhood and independence’.
I have visited Nazareth which is known as the Arab capital of Israel and ask is Britain not Great enough to recognise its mistakes and openly support all measures that will bring the two people together such as “A Land For All”.
Peter Martin. The VAT concession you point to was introduced to encourage “outsourcing” as without it something like a cleaning or payroll services company would be at an immediate 20% disadvantage compared to a team of directly employed staff but it does not apply to the vast majority of goods and services bought by departments. The vast majority of commercial companies (financial services companies excepted) can reclaim all of their input tax because they have taxable outputs. Your company is likely to have been in that position.
The Estonian plan to support Ukraine seems to be the most forward thinking and solid. The plan envisions all members of the Ramstein Contact Group (54 nations) committing 0.25% of GDP to military aid to Ukraine for an initial 4 years. This is less of a commitment than the EU COVID Recovery funds.
I believe our party should call for the UK Government to back this plan.
“we are trying to create the the same hysteria again”
It isn’t “hysteria” if they are actually invading another country.
“The Royal Navy would almost certainly have to assume most of the responsibility for guarding the North Sea”…
Guarding us from what exactly… British territorial borders are not at risk from invasion from the usual bogeymen the West trot out … Russia , Nkorea, China..
The days are long gone when the Navy sailed down the Yangste….There is no risk to British borders
On August 7 2022, the Vatican News wrote that the Pope said the grain deal charts the path forward toward peace.
“This step shows that it is possible to dialogue and achieve concrete results, which benefit everyone. Therefore, this event can be seen as a sign of hope, and I sincerely hope that, following this path, we can put an end to the fighting and arrive at a just and lasting peace.”
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2022-08/pope-francis-ukraine-russia-grain-appeal-peace.html
I asked Ed to please campaign on this.
Today on day 746 the Pope urges Ukraine to have courage of ‘white flag’ and negotiate end to war. The 87-year-old pontiff said parties should ‘have the courage to negotiate’ and do so ‘before things get worse’.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/10/ukraine-war-briefing-pope-urges-ukraine-to-have-courage-of-white-flag-and-negotiate-end-to-war
I now ask all of us the campaign on this.
One point is that there are NATO countries without any real arms manufacturing industry. Therefore the arms procurement is a loss to those countries and a gain to the countries with arms manufacturing, especially the USA. Perhaps we need a more realistic means of calculating the contribution of each country?
Zachary Adam Barker 9th Mar ’24 – 9:35pm….“we are trying to create the the same hysteria again”….
It isn’t “hysteria” if they are actually invading another country……
We, in the west, invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and wanted (with this party’ support) to bomb Syria..Would you have described as ‘hysteria’ a Russian claim that the west intended to continue it’s military advance through Iran into Turkmenistan (and all the other ‘Stans’) to threaten Russia?
The west, especially the US, used Ukraine as a stick to poke Russia by threatening him with a new NATO member on his doorstep. (I’m old enough to remember how close the world came to all out nuclear war over Cuba)… Putin thought, as did most of the west, that he would win a quick, decisive victory in Ukraine and return to the status quo; he didn’t and, if anything, Ukraine has shown that Russia is NOT a major threat to the west..
I was employed by a major defence company both in the UK and US and, when the Berlin wall came down, our contracts disappeared and I, then, worked for a mobile radio company..Strange how, even when there is ‘no money left’, unlimited funds can be found ‘lorsque le tambour roulez’..
Quite right expats. All this jingoistic nonsense , I had to check under my bed last night for a red !
Our borders are not under threat, & haven’t been since1939. Most voters are not concerned with the integrity of Ukraines borders & why should they. Ukraine is not worth the death of one British soldier.
Seeing as Galloway has been in the news this week , let’s remember that if those that listened to him & Corbyn , then they’d be a lot less grieving mothers around today & every day since those catastrophic invasions .
@ Richard,
“The VAT concession you point to … does not apply to the vast majority of goods and services bought by departments.”
It has to. What is the point of government paying a non-refundable VAT on, say, a warship? It would simply be paying itself and introduce distortions in local decision making. This is reason for Section 41 (3) of the VAT act.
This subject is probably beyond the scope of this thread. The link below fully explains the issues.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f47b17d8fa8f5362a8277d0/20200824-_Section_41_Policy_Paper_for_publication_Aug_2020.pdf
The s is probably beyond the
@John Waller, as you will be aware the U.N. had a hand in the creation of Israel so perhaps they should be held responsible.
However, thinking that the U.K. or the U.N. are responsible for solving the problem treats both the Israelis and Palestinians as infantile, disempowered, impotent; they are clearly none of those things. Both sets of protagonists are responsible for the situation we see today, it is their responsibility to find a solution.
For the U.K. or any other body to believe the situation must be solved for them, is the height of arrogance and mirrors the type of imperialist views that have left Europe’s fingerprints all over the region.
If we are asked to support then we should , naturally, give due consideration to any such request.
@John Waller. The Pope can urge Ukraine to surrender, but that doesn’t mean we should be campaigning for them to do so. Russia is only interested in peace on its terms. And would take no more notice of us than Israel or Hamas do.
@Thelma. No one wants British troops involved in wars anywhere, but this is nothing like Iraq in 2003: Putin is very open about his ambitions, should he succeed in Ukraine.
As for 1939… our borders weren’t under threat until after we declared war, in solidarity with Poland. A lot of people then were saying ‘none of our business’, and ‘who cares about Poland?’….
Cassie 10th Mar ’24 – 5:29pm….
The papacy has clarified that there is no demand for ‘surrender’..You should realise that the white flag is an internationally recognized protective sign of truce or ceasefire, and for negotiation…..
Regarding Putin’s post Ukraine ambitions; what are they? Putin considers Ukraine as ‘historically part of a Russian federation’ but, as far as I’m aware has made no such claims about the Baltic States, etc…
As for Hitler’s invasion of Poland; no statesman thought it ‘none of our business’..Hitler knew that his invasion after the signing of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance (signed after Germany violated the Munich Agreement) meant war with Britain and France..
Putin’s hoped-for plans for Ukraine: My guess is that Putin wants international recognition for the annexed regions for Donetsk and Crimea. He may want Odessa as well. On top of that he wants guarantees that a rump Ukraine will join neither NATO or the EU. Thus it will effectively become a buffer state between NATO and Russia. Without the protect of of the West, Ukraine will then become a defacto satellite of Moscow in much the say way as Belarus is. Ukrainians, having tasted independence from the Kremlin, will not be satisfied with this. Zelensky or his successor will set up a government-in-exile which may be recognised by the US and others. They will continue to fight a guerrilla-type war against Russia and Putin will suffer a Ukrainian thorn in his side for decades to come.
@expats. Whatever the flag means, the fact remains that negotiations (any negotiations between any two sides) either require concessions on both sides, or capitulation on one side.
In this instance, the only possible peace acceptable to Russia would require Ukraine to accept the loss of territory.
Russia annexed part of Georgia. We shrugged it off. Russia annexed Crimea. We shrugged it off. Russia started a war with Ukraine. It would be naive to think that if Ukraine rolled over, Russia wouldn’t look to annexe other ex-Soviet territories.
And in 1939, ‘statesmen’ may have cared about Poland, but there was no shortage of other people in Britain who thought we should stay out of it. Oh, and Hitler didn’t go around saying he planned to invade the Netherlands when Germany was ‘merely’ reclaiming the Sudetenland (‘ethnically German..’). Lot of ‘ethnically Russian’ places in Eastern Europe…
Cassie 11th Mar ’24 – 10:02am…@expats. Whatever the flag means, the fact remains that negotiations (any negotiations between any two sides) either require concessions on both sides, or capitulation on one side…..In this instance, the only possible peace acceptable to Russia would require Ukraine to accept the loss of territory…
If you won’t accept Russia retaining ANY Ukrainian territory, the only solution is Russian capitulation; how likely do you think that is?
With Donald Trump’s probable arrival, and his promise to ‘end the war in 24 hours’, what do you think will happen?
In the 2010 Ukraine election eastern Ukraine voted solidly for the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych; he was removed and replaced, largely by US interference (view the “**** the EU” Nuland-Pyatt conversation)..
As for your ” ‘statesmen’ may have cared about Poland, but there was no shortage of other people in Britain who thought we should stay out of it.” With all due respect, in view of the treaties I’ve already mentioned, what Mrs Trellis of north Wales thought had little bearing on Britain’s foreign policy..
@expats. Of course I don’t think Russia will capitulate any time soon. That doesn’t mean I think we should be urging Ukraine to do so either.
It would seem it isn’t clear that my reference to Poland was in response to Thelma. She has stated on this and another thread that Ukraine’s borders are of no interest to us, and ‘most voters’ don’t really care and therefore we should leave them to it.
She also said our borders hadn’t been threatened since 1939. I was using that as a comparison, is all. Pointing out that many voters then likely thought Poland’s borders were of no interest to us and we should leave them to it…
Thankfully, we didn’t. And I don’t think we should do so now.
So, with all due respect: Britain has pledged to back Ukraine. I don’t think what Thelma’s ‘most voters’ think should lead to a change in that policy.
@Cassie is spot on. The collective historical amnesia and political naivety (a not uncommon feature of our party IMHO) of many of the comments on this thread is breath taking.
@Philip Knight 13th Mar ’24 – 7:47am..
Seeing threats, where none existed, led to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya..How many millions of lives did those examples of ‘historical awareness and political intelligence’ cost?
@expats. Well the problems are as I see are that a) the poster child for seeing threats where none exist is Vladimir ‘i will use nukes’ Putin and seemingly most of the Russian population and; b) you none of those conflicts you mention were actually about addressing direct threats to the UK (or the US) – I don’t count the the Iraq WMDs as the credible excuse for participating in that disaster (something that CK nobly opposed – a glittering moment in our party’s history IMHO). Pacifism, and it’s evil twin appeasement, are fine, whilst you are still alive to preach them.
I do really get annoyed with those who align appeasement with pacifism. Now, there is a disagreement and instead of getting round a table and negotiating to settle it, there is a war of elastic length and then people get around the table to settle the dispute. In the interim thousands of people die, unnecessarily. Pacifism argues that settling disputes peacefully is the way forward and that NOT having the war, saves lives and makes settling the disagreement quicker. The problem is always those, almost always, male leaders who just can’t bring themselves to settle disputes, but insist in ordering their armed forces to fight and die, so that they don’t ‘lose face’.
One might have hoped that in 2024, mankind might have just learned that war does nothing except get people killed and delay the inevitable peace process. Negotiating to settle disputes does sometimes means both sides agreeing to something they would prefer not to, but this doesn’t amount to appeasement, it’s just pragmatism. Better that surely than thousands ( or sometimes millions) of human beings dying.
Mick Taylor: I appreciate that the pacifist position is difficult to advocate, but you have to be able to do better to put forward the case. You have to explain the mechanism, how to ensure that both sides are sincere, undeceitful and not out to ‘game’ the process. You have to be prepared to get into the specifics. This is obviously highly relevant to Ukraine, where it would appear disingenuous to insinuate that the Ukrainian side is motivated by machismo (I would hope you do not wish to imply this).
With respect to Ukraine, what kind of negotiated resolution can you envisage that would not count as appeasement and reward for an aggressor?
@expats ‘Seeing threats, where none existed…
Poland, Estonia and others are all just worrying over nothing, then? Putin’s comments about it being Russia’s ‘destiny’ to restore its lost USSR territories were empty words?
Dmitry Medvedev’s recent speech that Russia has a “dangerous enemy” in Poland, which ‘could end up losing its statehood if it continued on its current course’…. Just banter?
When someone tells you a barrel contains petrol and they are a fire-raiser, only a Biederman says ‘you’re joking.
As for the idea of ‘both sides agreeing to something they’d rather not’:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said peace with Ukraine will only take place “when we achieve our objectives”. (BBC, Dec 2023).
Should NATO enlarge beyond its original purpose to include any country that shares the same values as it? With the UN showing little sign of modernising to deal with recent threats, there is a role for a global organisation that can act quickly and is not impeded by its organisational structures. Perhaps it should also broaden its approach so it replaces the UN in some of its strategic functions.