Make Europe Great Again

Europe is arming itself. Defense companies expect new budgetary injections to boost production. Armies are returning to intensified recruitment. NATO troops on the eastern borders of the Alliance are increasing. Moreover. The allies are currently discussing a project to create a training center in Lithuania for the Ukrainian military for 50,000 soldiers, which will be a powerful shield against a potential Russian threat in the Baltic.

Since the Wales meeting in 2014, where NATO member states made a “non-binding commitment” to increase defense spending to at least 2% of GDP, U.S. power elites have been pushing Europe to accelerate the process, from exhortations to blunt ultimatums. The calls looked quite logical: by increasing the military budgets of European countries, the US would reduce the burden of maintaining security in Europe and the world. But this is not the case.

To begin with, from 1990 to 2014, U.S. European policy was diametrically opposed. The disarmament of Europe was part of a set of agreements with the USSR on the unification of Germany. The U.S. officially pursued two goals. First, by reducing the defense capacity of European countries and weapons stockpiles, they reduced the risk of new wars on the continent. Secondly, it was a kind of guarantee to Soviet Russia, for which disarmed Europe ceased to pose a military threat. European countries, in turn, received protection from the Russians at the expense of the American “nuclear umbrella”.

In reality, it was a brilliant plan of the Reagan-Bush Republican Administrations to ensure US leadership in world politics and economy and to move Europe from the category of competitors to junior partners. The same line was continued by the Democratic Administration of Bill Clinton. The reduction of defense spending by European countries has had an unexpected effect. By comparison, the German economy at the height of the Cold War grew by 98% from 1980 to 1989. At the same time, during the period of active disarmament from 1991 to 2005 by only 56%. The U.S. economy, which during the same period served as the “world's policeman” and fought in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, grew by 120%. At 5-6% each year.

Higher military spending has always pushed GDP upward. Suffice it to recall that the US came out of WWII with an economy that was half the size of the world economy. And that is what ensured US hegemony for the next few decades. And the young American state got its Independence thanks to the fact that the colonists aspired to the system of world trade, and the British Crown tried to limit them in it.

But back to Europe. It has already taken the path of building up its defense muscles and this process cannot be stopped. This year already 18 NATO countries will spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. Last year there were only 11 such members of the Alliance, in 2022 - seven. And in 2014 - only three. Moreover, defense spending by European NATO members bordering Russia - Poland, the Baltic States and Scandinavia - will exceed this figure.

It would seem that the U.S. should be pleased with the reduced burden of bearing the Alliance's military costs, but there is a nuance. Europe, armed to the teeth, will no longer need the United States as a guarantor of its security. And this will inevitably shake the leadership position of the United States in international politics. Especially after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, Niger and other regions of presence. And there are contenders for this role in Europe as well.

Increased defense spending by European NATO members will inevitably lead to an increase in EU GDP. But, in addition, it will lead to increased competition between Europe and the U.S. for raw materials in Africa and Asia and in the field of innovative technologies. And, as a result, to a decrease in revenues to the U.S. budget and directly into the wallets of voters. Unfortunately, neither the presidential candidates nor their political parties understand these risks and threats. In addition, increased competition in international politics has already led to the beginning of the process of creating regional security blocs.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to Congress, suggested that the U.S. should forge a security alliance in the Middle East: “America and Israel can forge such a security alliance in the Middle East to counter the growing Iranian threat.” Japan, concerned about the military threat from China and North Korea, has also shown increased interest in deepening security cooperation with the US. “The security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific region is inseparable, and Russia's aggression against Ukraine and its deepening military cooperation with North Korea is a strong reminder of this,” Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said recently.

The process of arming Europe set in motion by U.S. policymakers can no longer be stopped. But it can still be led. The only option how the U.S. can prevent its influence on international politics and trade from diminishing is to participate in the creation of new regional security blocs as a major partner. Including a new European bloc led, for example, by Poland, which recognizes the danger from Russia more than anyone else. The U.S., of course, has had a bad experience in such regional cooperation with Iran in the Middle East. But this is just a reason to take into account the mistakes of the past and not to abandon the project.

Whether or not the U.S. decides to participate in the regional security blocs that are about to emerge around the world, the consequences of such a move will have a direct impact on the country's economy and the well-being of households over the next 5-10 years. Whether the results will be positive or negative depends entirely on the leaders of the American nation.