“Keep calm and carry on”.
A NATO in which there is no trust between Americans, Canadians and Europeans will not survive. Given the uncertainties over US reliability, Europeans have no option but to discreetly lessen their dependence on Washington. They must also seek to create the conditions for trust to be restored in the hope that future Administrations better understand the value of the Alliance. Europeans should also adopt a “minilateralist approach to get Europe moving” by building on existing military coalitions such as the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF) and the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). The commitment to spend 5% GDP of which 3.5% GDP would be spent on core military capability is no longer simply about more equitable sharing of transatlantic burdens. It will be vital to give European leaders more military capability and thus greater political options in a crisis.
The future of the transatlantic relationship will thus depend on the depth and scope of what is at present a “guarded disagreement”. The hard truth is Ukraine, Greenland, Iran, tariffs and a host of tensions have forced Europeans to worry about the US as an ally and partner. “When one worries about someone upon whom you rely on you have a real problem”. This is not simply a question for defence as so much of European Fintech is controlled by US technology.
A European-led NATO is unlikely. The EU affords no alternative to NATO because European divisions mean it cannot credibly meet the “dimensioning threat” to Europe. Therefore, the focus should be on stronger and better coordinated European capabilities that can operate within the Alliance and beyond. Europeans also need to constantly remind Americans that “NATO is more than a military alliance. It is where values and power meet”. “This will take time” because political uncertainties in Europe also mean that there is little political will to address such issues today. “Where will France be in 2027?” What if there is a Melenchon or Bardella government in France? Britain? London appears to be retreating behind its nuclear deterrent. Germany? Poland?
Affordability is vital. The focus should be on the pragmatic and the possible with Europeans getting far more from their existing defence investments. For example, Britain, France and Germany spend some $200 billion per annum on defence and yet get so little usable capability for that investment. None of the solutions are new. For example, better pooling and sharing would improve affordability but will require long-held concerns about industrial policy and sovereignty to be overcome. There are precedents. The European Air Transport Command is an example where the structures of both collective and where needed are common, but the assets are national.
If the US regards Europe as an emerging “economic and civilizational rival” to which it is providing an American public good and to people it despises then NATO will fail. If Europeans regard the US as an unreliable Hegemon NATO will fail. For NATO to survive greater European military capabilities are the sine qua non because they will not only remind Americans of the value to the US of NATO, but also afford Europeans greater influence over American policy and actions and their own.
Julian Lindley-French