The State of Europe’s Military Neglect
In 1999 during air operations in the Kosovo war, NATO fighter planes carried out over 800 flights daily. Last year, in the campaign against Libya, NATO carried out 250. As it became known later on, not only did the U.S. have to furnish its own communications intelligence, but it also had to supply part of the fuel used by the Europeans. It was nevertheless, a NATO war, even if the U.S. did end up “leading from behind,” more than they had intended.
NATO Secretary General Paul Rasmussen recently stated that during the Cold War, Europeans made up one third of NATO defense expenditures, and now constitute a mere 20 percent. Obviously the end of the Cold War was responsible for the reduction then. However, now it is mostly due to the budget cuts caused by the economic recession and resulting operative and geopolitical consequences. Denmark has decided to get rid of its submarines. In Spain the situation continues to be unsettling due to cutbacks in air force flight training hours in order to save fuel – during which the planes could lose operability – or the decommissioning of the Principe de Asturias aircraft carrier. The British are also doing the same with their aircraft carriers.
While it is true that Europe’s defense needs have changed, a smart defense would not be a cheap solution. Meanwhile, according to Jane’s, what Europe does spend – 1.7 percent of GDP, versus 5.4 percent in the U.S. – is not enough for sufficient productivity. Never before have Europeans had so many troops spread out on so many missions – between 55,000 and 79,000 depending upon the year – yet in spite of having an equivalent number of soldiers, European deployment capacity is still a fraction of the U.S. capacity.
Europe currently stands the chance of becoming strategically irrelevant – less useful to Washington and even less useful to itself. In fact, according to a recent article in the Financial Times, the U.S. considers Europe less and less useful for defense needs. They have announced the withdrawal of two combat brigades from Germany, thus reducing the number of North American troops in Europe to 30,000 – compared to 280,000 at the height of the Cold War. Obama is keeping the U.S. strategic priority sights trained on the Pacific, with China being a primary factor, while Europe risks being relegated to a mere logistical platform, an advance base for U.S. military projection towards the Middle East and Central Asia, including anti-missile defense and Africa.
European defense policy has been left to stagnate. High Representative Catherine Ashton, like a good Brit, has halted some of the advances achieved by Solana. Although there has been some progress, with battle groups for example – 1,500 soldiers in each – the most effective is the Nordic battle group. Some progress – in NATO as well – with arms programs in spite of the fact that many are still dominated by state-run national industries. This is insufficient. NATO, as demonstrated in its Chicago summit, will carry on. It will overcome its failure in Afghanistan or Libya. It doesn’t consider itself to be exclusively Western, even though it really is, and it will aspire to be a hub for other kinds of allies, although they have yet to resolve their relations with Russia. And eventually, with China.
NATO Secretary General Paul Rasmussen recently stated that during the Cold War, Europeans made up one third of NATO defense expenditures, and now constitute a mere 20 percent. Obviously the end of the Cold War was responsible for the reduction then. However, now it is mostly due to the budget cuts caused by the economic recession and resulting operative and geopolitical consequences. Denmark has decided to get rid of its submarines. In Spain the situation continues to be unsettling due to cutbacks in air force flight training hours in order to save fuel – during which the planes could lose operability – or the decommissioning of the Principe de Asturias aircraft carrier. The British are also doing the same with their aircraft carriers.
While it is true that Europe’s defense needs have changed, a smart defense would not be a cheap solution. Meanwhile, according to Jane’s, what Europe does spend – 1.7 percent of GDP, versus 5.4 percent in the U.S. – is not enough for sufficient productivity. Never before have Europeans had so many troops spread out on so many missions – between 55,000 and 79,000 depending upon the year – yet in spite of having an equivalent number of soldiers, European deployment capacity is still a fraction of the U.S. capacity.
Europe currently stands the chance of becoming strategically irrelevant – less useful to Washington and even less useful to itself. In fact, according to a recent article in the Financial Times, the U.S. considers Europe less and less useful for defense needs. They have announced the withdrawal of two combat brigades from Germany, thus reducing the number of North American troops in Europe to 30,000 – compared to 280,000 at the height of the Cold War. Obama is keeping the U.S. strategic priority sights trained on the Pacific, with China being a primary factor, while Europe risks being relegated to a mere logistical platform, an advance base for U.S. military projection towards the Middle East and Central Asia, including anti-missile defense and Africa.
European defense policy has been left to stagnate. High Representative Catherine Ashton, like a good Brit, has halted some of the advances achieved by Solana. Although there has been some progress, with battle groups for example – 1,500 soldiers in each – the most effective is the Nordic battle group. Some progress – in NATO as well – with arms programs in spite of the fact that many are still dominated by state-run national industries. This is insufficient. NATO, as demonstrated in its Chicago summit, will carry on. It will overcome its failure in Afghanistan or Libya. It doesn’t consider itself to be exclusively Western, even though it really is, and it will aspire to be a hub for other kinds of allies, although they have yet to resolve their relations with Russia. And eventually, with China.