The Munich Security Conference, the world’s preeminent annual gathering on international security, wrapped up last weekend. Global leaders and experts discussed a wide range of concerns, but the threat of Russia and fate of Ukraine took center stage. Events in recent weeks have enhanced the former and made the latter look bleak, just ahead of the second anniversary of the war.
This has European countries looking inward and wondering what that might mean for their own future security, at a time when their primary security guarantor — the United States — is looking fickle.
The conference opened to news of Alexei Navalny’s death in an Arctic penal colony. Navalny was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most effective critic and political foe, and whatever the proximate cause, Putin was the executioner. It’s hard to escape the fact that Putin will get away with it, which will embolden him further while giving other homegrown dissenters more pause.
The White House’s promise for more sanctions in response feels futile, as two years of intense economic punishment have failed to impede Putin’s bad acts. If anything, he’s more brazen. A Russian defector was just found dead in Spain, an indication that Putin isn’t afraid to conduct his vengeance on European soil either.
Russia also just secured its biggest battleground gain in nearly a year, when Ukraine withdrew from the key eastern town of Avdiivka after months of intense fighting.
The fall of Avdiivka put a spotlight on Congress’s failure to pass a new Ukraine military aid package. Weapons and ammunition stockpiles have been dwindling for months, leaving Ukraine heavily outmanned and outgunned by Russia. Those shortages clearly had an impact. With a majority in Congress in favor of continuing assistance to Ukraine, the decision by the Republican-led House to take a vacation rather than bring the aid bill to a vote exposes America’s highly dysfunctional political system and the peril of relying on it for one’s defense.
This is a hard lesson for Europe to learn after decades of doing just that. Unlike Ukraine, Europe’s dependence is the product of choice. Most European countries have taken steps recently to address defense shortcomings by increasing spending and exploring how to enhance their own industrial capacity. But the response is too slow, the gap too great, and they’ve nearly wasted two years with a lack of cohesiveness and urgency.
NATO’s lopsided reliance on the U.S. military is hardly new. Presidents and other political leaders have complained about it for decades, but the United States did little to urge change, either, content with the level of control it retained from its outsize contribution.
That reality, though, could change far more quickly than European countries could adapt — a fact not lost on the participants in Munich, after recent inflammatory statements from former President Donald Trump. Trump announced at a campaign rally that he would not abide by America’s treaty commitment to NATO if reelected and would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO member countries that don’t meet NATO spending guidelines. Some dismissed it as campaign trail bluster, but John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said he has no doubt that Trump will find a way to abandon NATO if reelected.
Despite some countries’ increased defense spending, the United States still contributes more than two-thirds of NATO’s budget. Europe’s two biggest economies — Germany and France — still spend below the pledged 2% on defense, though in a sign of heightened concern, both announced earlier this month that they plan to reach that target this year.
But increasing defense spending alone won’t be sufficient to replace what would be lost without U.S. backing. Enhancing European arms production, for example, doesn’t happen overnight, and arms producers need more firm financial commitments before they’ll invest in expanding production.
At Munich, some European leaders were blunt about the need for urgent action to avert Ukraine’s demise, which would bring Russia’s threat closer to their doorstep. The president of the Czech Republic said his country has located 800,000 shells elsewhere that could be bought and shipped to Ukraine quickly, and the Danish prime minister said Denmark will donate its entire artillery stockpile.
These moves might help plug a short-term gap for Ukraine but do little to enhance Europe’s security in the long term. Perhaps this period of uncertainty will pass with NATO little affected and Europe still secure. The House could still pass the Ukraine aid bill, boosting Ukraine before it’s too late. And if President Joe Biden is reelected, America’s commitment to NATO and Ukraine will be secure for at least another four years.
But even so, Europe should take the risk of an unpredictable America to heart and do what it takes now to enhance its security self-sufficiency. This might be its last opportunity to do so.
Elizabeth Shackelford is a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”
