Jokes about the European military have circulated for ages.
One that stands out humorously suggests that Italian tanks are equipped with four reverse gears and just a single forward gear.
This design, the joke goes, is for unexpected confrontations from behind.
However, when it comes to reality, Europe’s defense mechanisms are far from laughable.
Since the Cold War’s conclusion, European nations have enjoyed a ‘peace dividend,’ often reducing defense budgets significantly.
This shift has partly been to sustain their extensive welfare programs.
Every American president this century has tried to persuade their European counterparts to up their spending — particularly America’s NATO allies.
Republicans and Democrats have both tried to do it.
And they have used different tactics to warn, cajole and threaten.
But still the Europeans have played games with their figures.
Beg them to hit a 2% GDP commitment on defense spending and even the countries that do make it will have done so by wrapping in army pensions and other such things to reach the minimum figure.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 ought to have been the wake-up call that the Europeans needed.
It should have been the moment when they realized their neighborhood just got very serious again.
Putting aside the invasion of Ukraine, they could have looked at the Russian incursions into Polish airspace or their sniffing around the Baltic states to realize that Vladimir Putin had to be deterred.
And that minimal defense spending would not be the way to deter him.
Matter of proximity
Yet the results have been mixed, to say the least.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the countries nearest to Russia — and most likely to suffer from Putin’s aggression — are spending the most.
Poland and the Baltic states — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — are projected to spend around or over 4% of their GDP on defense this year.
Other countries lag far behind.
Spain and Ireland in particular — perhaps because they are furthest from Russia, or perhaps because they are welfare-indebted far-left messes — lag way behind.
Last year Spain committed just 1.28% of their GDP to defense.
Ireland manages to commit a mere 0.24% of its GDP to defense.
These are pathetic figures.
And this week it turned out that Europe won´t even use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine.
The country that is holding that up? Belgium.
Yes, Belgium.
But the question that President Trump and many Americans have is, why should it fall to a country much further away from Russia to be expected to pay more for the defense of Europe than Europe is prepared to defend itself?
It’s a good question, and one European leaders naturally balk at.
The continent is filled with people who have decided that post-2022 they have the opportunity to grandstand.
You have consecutive British prime ministers, from Boris Johnson to Keir Starmer, who have tried to present themselves as Churchillian figures.
You have Emmanuel Macron — the would-be Napoleon — in Paris.
All of these leaders and more talk a big game, but are they up to it?
A leak this week puts this in some kind of perspective.
‘Betrayal’ warning
It was reported that in a call with European leaders, French President Macron warned that the US may be about to “betray” Ukraine.
The transcript of the call — leaked to a German magazine — reported Macron as saying “there is a possibility that the US will betray Ukraine on the issue of territory without clarity on security guarantees.”
Everyone is now focusing on the word “betray” (which the French are denying was used).
What people are ignoring is the bigger question: security guarantees.
If the Europeans are concerned about Ukraine having security guarantees as part of a peace deal, is this not the moment to step up?
President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian public as a whole are right to wish for some guarantees to their future security.
Especially if the peace deal put before them includes the ugly prospect of Ukraine having to hand Ukrainian territory over to the Russians.
Including — as I said in this column a couple of weeks back — parts of Ukraine that Russian forces have not yet fully captured.
Of course there should be guarantees for the country’s future security, to make sure Putin is dissuaded from trying to gobble up more Ukrainian territory in the near or distant future.
The thing that the Ukrainians would want most — NATO membership — cannot be on the table because it will be a nonstarter in negotiations.
But the idea of European troops being stationed in Ukraine to act as a deterrent to Putin is eminently achievable.
If the Europeans want to help bring this war to an end, one of the best things they could do is to walk the walk.
Make a commitment
Instead of Starmer, Macron, Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany and company all talking about the threat of further Russian aggression, why not make a commitment to prevent it?
Political and military leaders in Europe have spent the past three years issuing dire warnings of further Russian invasions, a possible full-scale war with Russia and even the prospect of conscription in European countries.
But they don’t act as though their words have meaning.
Why don’t they commit themselves to providing the thousands of troops necessary to deploy in Ukraine after all hostilities cease?
It is a question that is very hard to answer.
If America felt it was at risk of imminent invasion and its leaders said so, it would be a very strange thing if spending- and military-wise this country maintained business as usual.
As it happens, it seems possible that Britain and, to a lesser extent, France may be willing to commit some numbers of troops.
But what of the rest of Europe?
There remains a concern about German military expansion.
But at some stage that is going to have to be a problem that Europe gets over.
You will probably never have a secure Europe without a significant German military.
But for now most of Europe is still doing what it has done for decades: hoping Uncle Sam will bail them out.
It’s time for Europe to find the forward gear on that tank.
