Defending Europe is Not American Charity

Europe is an objective that can be imperfect allies or perfect enemies

Stop being shortsighted about free Europe. Defending Europe isn't American charity. Europe is an objective that must be secured to prevent it from being an asset for enemies as much as it is a source of allies.

NATO is America's great wall to keep threats on the the eastern shores of the Atlantic from forming:

Europe is America's first line of defense in the Atlantic. I'd rather keep the Russians as far east as possible where America's role is limited to providing material and financial help rather than expending the lives of American troops to hold the line. That's a major reason I support Ukraine strongly. You may think I'm overstating the threat. But that's only because we've kept that threat away for so long. Let's look at the Atlantic threat.

The idea that America should let Europe take care of itself is reckless. And the author's misleading comparison of defense spending makes me distrust everything he writes.

Like this:

In 2020, the U.S. defense budget was a staggering $778 billion, compared to the combined $323 billion spent by all European NATO members (despite a population of 120 million more than the U.S.). 

Why would the author use population rather than GDP? God help Africa if they need our help. The comparison would be shockingly lopsided, eh?

And by this logic, should we disregard the China threat because its defense spending isn’t four times America’s? I mean, that’s the population edge.

Let's look at GDP.

America has a GDP of $29 trillion. The European Union has a GDP of $19 trillion despite 30% more people. So the EU's GDP is about 66% of America's

So you could start by saying the EU should spend 66% of America's spending, or $513 billion.

So there's a theoretical gap of $265 billion.

But America has a large nuclear arsenal with about 5,000 warheads. Call the cost $60 billion. Britain and France have—I'm going on memory—fewer than 500 warheads, combined. So subtract $54 billion from America's total defense spending to account for this unique expense.

The gap shrinks to $211 billion.

Europeans basically leave their ports, drive off their bases, and take off from airfields to be in the combat zone. That's hyperbole, but not by much. America has to come across the Atlantic. This means we need things like transport ships, Navy logistics ships, transport planes, and refueling planes—and all their crews and supporting infrastructure to move and sustain forces. That's hugely expensive. Then consider our ships are more expensive because the hulls are larger just to move across the Atlantic. These are expenses that Europe doesn't have. I won't even try to research the cost, but it is significant. $100 billion?

If so, then the gap is $111 billion.

Plus we train our troops much more than most European states. And we provide more support--including a large and well trained pool of aircraft and well-trained pilots and crews--to keep them fighting and reduce casualties. Spending money rather than blood is our objective. I'd say that is priceless, but let's say $50 billion.

If so, the gap is $50 billion.

Mind you, one could find harder data to do what I did with minimal research and some wild guesses. But the story would be largely the same.

Then consider that Europe is basically a single-threat continent. Other than minor anti-jihadi operations, Europeans face Russia. America faces Russia. And China. And Iran. And North Korea. And jihadis. When you consider that America isn't building forces solely to defend Europe as the author's comparison strongly implies, you can say America doesn't spend enough. But saying Europe is grossly under-spending is wrong. 

Should Europeans spend more? Absolutely. They even agree, and have since 2014. And even more so since 2022. And if the author used defense spending data more recent than 2020, I bet we’d see they have. 

Sure, you could argue Europe should match the level of spending needed for America’s breadth of capabilities to focus more on their single threat. But then you have to argue that America shouldn’t have slashed its defense burden as a percent of GDP after destroying the USSR in the Cold War. Shouldn’t America have used that as an opportunity to spend more to face other enemies? Like a rising China with a huge and modernized navy and air force? Oops.

Or you have to think Europe should spend like the global power America spends to cope with many threats. That way it can face a regional Russian threat plus send and sustain expeditionary forces to support America farther afield. Is that really reasonable?

And as the expression goes, be careful of what you wish for, eh?

Then you have to consider that Europe is composed of multiple states rather than a single state like America. That means European defense spending isn’t as efficient.

But I don’t want to hear a damned word about letting the EU run Europe rather than European states. The idea is to reduce threats to America—not add to them.

Indeed, the argument is much stronger that America needs to spend much more than it does for all of the threats America faces.

He has other points, but let me just end with the notion that the European Union—of all entities—should replace America as the leading force in NATO. That is frighteningly shortsighted:

The modern purpose of NATO is to keep America in Europe, keep Russia out, and keep European autocratic impulses down. …

It is easy to forget--and this was a useful reminder to me--that Europe with its autocracies and monarchies was not fully part of a free West (although obviously part of the Western tradition) until we rebuilt Western Europe in that template after World War II. And NATO expansion after defeating the Soviet Union was more explicit in demanding democracy and rule of law for new members.

This writer notes that problem:

The idea of natural rights, a core principle in the founding of this nation, came out of the European Enlightenment. Most of our values originate on the European continent, and we tend to view most nations there as being, more or less, free societies.

We need to knock that off.

Time and time again, we see how these nations lack basic freedom. They are filled with authoritarians who think the government should have way too high of a degree of control over their citizens’ day-to-day lives.

The European Union elites dream of ejecting American influence from Europe and weakening NATO is the primary means of doing that. EU bureaucrats must be pinching themselves about the prospect of America stalking off as if that is a punishment for Europe—"holding them accountable"!—rather than a dream come true.

I guarantee that if ruthless enemies control Europe—whether Russia or the EU—they will squeeze the economic, scientific, and demographic potential of Europe to aim it at America.