Is there really a strategic rift between the United States and Europe? Yes, if you believe the media echo that reverberated in unison after the February 6–8 Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering of leaders and defense experts. The question of whether the West should deliver arms to the Ukrainian government to support its defensive battle against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine was all the craze in Munich and elsewhere.
In fact, the answer to whether there is a transatlantic schism is both more complicated and more unsettling. Because the real issue is not Ukraine. It is something a lot bigger.
The crisis over Ukraine is indeed, as many commentators suggest, about the future of the political and security order in Europe. But contrary to what many analysts say, it is much less about rules, architecture, and all the other abstractions that fill much of the commentary. It is more about who is willing to put military might on the line to defend Western and Central Europe. In other words, the Ukraine crisis is about the role of the United States in Europe.
In essence, Europeans and Americans are in the midst of negotiating who should be in charge of security in Europe at a time of strategic scarcity. The United States must and wants to shift its geopolitical focus to the Pacific, where a formidable rival is emerging and where the future of the global balance of power will be decided over the next few generations.
The European theater, by comparison, is thought to demand less attention. There, the rich countries of the old continent should, in theory, be perfectly capable of taking care of most of their own security. This is especially true since the biggest threat to Europe comes from Russia, a declining Eastern behemoth barely capable of assuring its own economic survival and controlling its auto-aggressive behavior.
But Europe is far from security self-reliance. In fact, instead of becoming more autonomous, its governments keep increasing their dependence on U.S. security services by steadily reducing their own capabilities. This is partly because of economic distress, partly because of acute strategic dyslexia. Europeans seem to be unaware of their own strategic dilemma: that the United States must focus elsewhere while Europe’s security is increasingly threatened by its wide, unruly neighborhood.
The rift between the US and Europe over #Ukraine is much smaller than it seems.Tweet This
The Ukraine crisis has only accelerated the speed at which the West is negotiating Europe’s new security system. Curiously, the actual rift over Ukraine itself is much smaller than it seems. When the crisis turned serious, the United States and Europe acted in a fairly synchronized fashion. Their response was a mix of reassurance within NATO, sanctions against Russia, and support for the new government in Kiev.
Most importantly, however, the West (rightly) decided very early on in the crisis that it was unwilling to go to war over Ukraine. By doing so, Western leaders made it clear—implicitly—that their security guarantees did not apply to Ukraine, and that the country was not part of the European security architecture.
This was tragic for those Ukrainians who stuck their necks out on Kiev’s Independence Square during the antigovernment protests of 2013–2014, but it was the only way forward. Western military involvement would have been sheer madness. To this day, that policy has not changed. The United States and Europe are actually very much on the same page.
The talk of a rift comes from the discussion about supplying arms to the Ukrainian government. The noise that the Washington hawks made at the Munich Security Conference about the issue—just listen to U.S. Senator John McCain’s angry diatribe against German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “foolish” diplomacy—was directed less at Europeans than at U.S. President Barack Obama and his team, whom their internal opponents accuse of being too soft.
At a more fundamental level, the hubbub also reflected a genuine disgruntlement on the U.S. side about the Europeans’ unwillingness to understand the basic strategic dilemma they face. McCain may be barking up the wrong tree on Ukraine, but he has an important point when he asks Europeans to do more for their own security.
What will be the outcome of the negotiations on European security in the post-European world? It is unclear, and no lasting solution has so far been found.
Europeans are unwilling to understand the basic strategic dilemma they face.Tweet This
For the time being, America is back, albeit reluctantly. With renewed U.S. commitment, NATO is reinforcing its Eastern flank, marking the boundary at which Western security responsibilities end. Ukraine is left dangling in an in-between position, with part of its territory becoming another frozen conflict that ensures lasting Russian influence over this part of the post-Soviet space. The Europeans, in the meantime, are trying desperately to keep their economies and their always-fragile political order from disintegrating.
Can this form of Western retrenchment, European halfheartedness, and a slightly beefed-up U.S. security presence in Europe be the future of European security? Not for long. The lingering power vacuum invites external probing. Europe seems capable neither of policing nor of integrating its neighborhood. Germany, Europe’s temporary leader, is an incomplete strategic player, while Europe’s traditional key players—France and the UK—have, at least for the moment, sidelined themselves because of internal weakness.
In the end, all will again depend on Washington. The decisive question for European security is whether the United States will be able to tend to both beating hearts of world order, Europe and Asia, at the same time. The real negotiations over European security are not taking place in Ukraine or in Brussels. They are being held on the Potomac.
Comments(14)
This is nuts and irrelevant. Federalization was already supposedly agreed upon for Ukraine and for every province, all 27. Washington wants war. There is no security problem in Europe except for the neocon desire to control energy deliveries to Europe at least via the petrodollar system. Hopefully this is all kabuki theatre where Putin and the Fed have already made some sort of deal and maybe they feel they have to settle the issue of a possible new Maidan in Kiev by controlling both sides in a "controlled burn". For instance, did the Fed deliberately sacrifice the troops in the Debaltsevo Pocket? It would seem someone at the Pentagon wanted this. Like Ilovaisk, any five year old could have predicted it would become a pocket. A really big danger is the American public does not know how seemingly close we are to nuclear war now (if this isn't kabuki theatre) and that this may be because of the impending collapse of the petrodollar system. The US ALWAYS goes to war against those who drop the dollar. Always. You "Russia experts " have got to start being honest about this. At least stop pretending Ukr Federalization is so unacceptable. Federalization would create a buffer zone of 20 provinces not aligned with Russia. Think Yugoslavia. There is peace there now. Russia is not going to start something in Narva if it gets Federalization in Ukraine. That is false logic.
This is an excellent analysis. To me, the largest and most important failure at present is Germany's failure to allow the scrapping of the Russia-NATO Founding Act, which would signal a real seriousness about dealing with the European security vacuum. I really don't see that it would be that hard or costly politically for Merkel to do this. This is backed up by the continued failure of Germany to spend more on defencee, and then press the other slacking large countires of NATO, Spain, Italy, Belgium etc. A little leadership would be make a large difference.
"I really don't see that it would be that hard or costly politically for Merkel to do this." Merkel learned a lesson in 2002 when she put her name under an open letter of CDU MPs supporting Bush's Iraq War. That support cost the CDU an election they had already considered won. Ever since Merkel has been very careful not to come too close to any security/defense related issue, prefering to remain very vague and non-committal.
Europe's historic memory of war is both enlightening and crippling. Not so much different than it was in WWII when Germany rolled into Poland. Europe is in a prickly situation but the solution is fairly clear. Power respects power. The works with Russia and those in the Middle East. You need to project power and resolve in most cases to achieve peace. Europe should build up their military and utilize NATO to achieve that end. You don't have to use this power, just project it. Indecision and infighting projects weakness and invites aggression. I don't think you need to arm Ukraine to get Russia's undivided attention.
Smart words, as always from Jan.
Jan Techau’s commentary was thoughtful in many respects. But the theoretical premise of the United States shift to the Pacific, the so called pivot, in terms of strategic focus is now becoming questioned as is the scope of our defense budget. Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) clearly show in the calendar year 2013, military spending declined from $671 billion to $619 billion, in constant 2011 dollars. In dollar terms, this was the largest decline since 1991. When U.S. inflation-adjusted military spending fell by one-third in the 1990s, the U.S. share of global military spending only fell by six percentage points because other countries, particularly Russia, reduced their military spending as well. This has now all changed unfortunately, because Russia has become potentially a far greater military threat than China. I do mean unfortunately, because we the citizens of the United States, rich, poor, and middle class are going to have to make scarifies to maintain our global military dominance due to Russia becoming aggressive and unpredictable along with the ongoing issues related to IS and other Islamic fundamentalist entities worldwide. Europe could help but they continue to reduce their funding for their armed forces in real dollars terms. France's defense spending as a percentage of its GDP has dropped from about 2.5 percent 10 years ago to 1.9 percent in 2013, according to NATO statistics. In Germany, where military spending is a sensitive issue due to the country's martial history, about 1.3 percent of GDP is devoted to the military. Russia today poses a serious challenge to the United States armed forces. Russia has a modernizing a military that was in steep decline throughout the 1990s and the early 2000s. It’s naval and air units are operating at a pace and an extent that hasn’t been seen in quite some time, to include a large increase in trans-oceanic and global military operations. Did these events relating to Putin's rule fundamentally change the assumptions that underpinned the US defense strategy that was outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review? The answer is yes and the US force planning construct will have to be adjusted, if not completely by the Obama administration, then certainly by the next administration.
Not much hope. The German army is training with black painted broomsticks. Na dann mal eine auf den Dutt, Ruski!
No , in former Soviet space all frozen conflict , if actual or future , are only the showdown of a problem which was wound up with too much speed and too many simplifications The boundaries purely administrative within the USSR suddenly became sacred national borders without a serious and thoughtful assessment of individual cases and today we pay the rush to dismantle as much as possible and as fast as the old Soiuz
Techau's proposal that Europe should be "policing [or] integrating its neighborhood" is an utterly aggressive one. Imagine what would happen if every power in the world heeded that advice. Would China attempt to "police or integrate" Korea and Vietnam ? Would Iran attempt to "police or integrate" Iraq ?
Timely and accurate analysis. There is a way to solve this for Europe but I am not sure the U.S. can tolerate it: by developing the EU military dimension with a strategic nuclear force fairly large and as resilient as those of the U.S. and Russia and compounded with a doctrine mirroring that of Russia's: going nuclear allowed as a response to even low intensity conventional attack on EU. This requires a European top soldier, not a U.S. general, who can use it automatically by the doctrine, not with a consensus vote by EU leaders.
Reaganomics and Bush Wars have thrown Europe and America under the Republican bus. Republicans deliberately wasted and looted the national treasury over the last 35 years. European security was put behind profit making in overseas markets. Outsourcing created the rising economic and political challenges facing the West today. Why Europe followed the bad examples and bad advice of Republican politicians I'll never understand. Washington can't help itself let alone anyone else while under the thumbs of the Republican controlled Congress, Courts, State Legislatures and security forces. Don't depend on Republican Washington. Republicans only seek security for other Republicans.
You forget that EU is NOT a state not even an association, although EU is in some ways or another a strong unity, EU cannot act as a state. And Germany is not in souverenity at all, Germany is a conquered state ba USA and under supervision of army-Law even 2+4 treaty! Despite Merkels low ambition for strategy, onefold she acts like a survant tu US-foreign strategy twufld she tries to prevent Europe from a dangerous war- initiated by USA-Forces and weaponery upon the basis of new-world-order selfesteem, riots at MAIDAN and overrunning reignship of UKRAINE entirely. It is well known from Nuland what USA had invested and whoelse invested there and that USA believe that UKRAINE is its territory, nevertheless what Obama is brumbling about unviolable territories. Washington wants a war-test for its further strategies on Russian ressources, firms and territory!
Completely wrong! There is a great difference in policy awareness about Europa entirely. Europa is not US-Territory, neither does it belong to US-government, despite some regulatory scemes from WWII. USA is not the sole proprieator of EU nor Europe up to URAL. Since US-Petro-Dollar is diminishing world-wide and the wealth-system is breaking off, USA is enhancing its pace, speed and warmongering globally in order to save what is not to be saved anylonger. The new-world-order is no longer thau single opportunity, rather a symbol for failed states, riots, terror, anger, disapprovements. In hope to conquer Russia again within 12 months, USA lacks brainsubstance of dignity, intellect, policy-alternaives as well as peace-minded strategies. Weapons and war is no choice for siege nowadays.
Techau displays three major misunderstandings about what has been going on. First, he thinks that American Javelin anti-tank missiles given to the rag-tag Ukrainian forces would turn everything around there. Nonsense -- and brings a peril of escalation. Diplomacy is the only way -- and, by the way, the Ukraine situation is all about Ukraine, not about NATO Europe. Second, he does not adequately recognize the utter stagnation the EU, and especially Germany, has imposed upon the EU economies. They are utterly paralyzed. And third, he hasn't the foggiest notion about U.S. security strategy. Back in the summer of 2013, there was no Russian threat, the U.S. defense budget was under sequestration, and the new strategy was simply to leave what was there in East Asia (plus 60/40 shift of USN), while slimming down the forces in the Middle East as Afghanistan phased down, and going to two brigades in Europe -- since no threat. To be sure, that has all changed (except the U.S. defense budget). The U.S. and its allies have consulted well and are beefing up the defenses of the threatened Baltics -- see the demonstration in Narva the other day. Stop the hand-wringing!
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.