The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:
But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.
But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.
Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.
Yeah, but a lot of it comes from Europe not choosing to lead on any international crisis, to the point where it has intentionally designed its defense to require the US to participate.
I look at it like this, the EU should have its own independent military from NATO given its size and wealth. Yet, it chooses to be entirely dependent on NATO and needs the US to help in any sort of projection of force.
Which is a huge misunderstanding of how Europe works. It’s not federal like the US and would require all countries to agree to a centralised army. Many countries are rightly concerned about the concept and what it would mean for their own sovereign armed forces so won’t approve the idea.
Or it is federal in the same way the Holy Roman Empire was.
And the concern that European politicians seem to have is that an EU army would require the EU to define military policy rather than just follow US military policy. It isn’t that the EU couldn’t be made to gain greater competencies in military and diplomatic areas, it is that the various EU nations are happier letting the US define that instead.
What are you talking about? Every country in Europe already has its own military and the EU has a defensive clause it the pact.
And each American state has its own military as well that is controlled by the different governors.
And the base for that defense pact is NATO headquarters. This is also only defense only, which makes cases where the EU needs to respond to threats on its frontier difficult because there is no organizing entity to handle this issue. And if the defense pact was the reason for inter-EU defense, it is going to be through the lens of NATO, which gives the US a pretty big say on EU defense.
It really is a matter of European countries keeping to the defense spending requirements they have already committed to under NATO. A lot of Europeans I talk to claim that it is wasteful, and that money is better spent on foreign aide. But meanwhile, the US still foots the bill for their defense. This is an intense able situation - the US cannot put the entire world on ots back. Multilaterlaism has to mean cooperation from the rest of the world to ensure safety.
But it is more than that. A lot of EU nations don’t have a military of a size capable of more than just basic infantry. This has been a problem for NATO as the US has created a lot of the logistics and specialty platforms required to fight a modern war that a lot of other nations don’t pay into.
The EU is already seeing the merging of several military units because it is cheaper to develop them at scale. At that point, why not just have all of the EU create and manage the joint arms at a level where it makes more sense?
Becoming a vassal of the US is the direct consequences of that choice.