By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.
CHOOSE YOUR LANGUAGE
CHOOSE YOUR LANGUAGE
互联网新闻信息许可证10120180008
Disinformation report hotline: 010-85061466
Flags of the European Union fly outside the Berlaymont Building, the European Commission headquarters, in Brussels, Belgium, January 29, 2025. /Xinhua
Editor's note: Freddie Reidy, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance writer based in London, specializing in international politics. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
Since the redrawing of the map at the Yalta Conference after the Second World War in the European arena, one constant remained true: Western European sovereignty would be upheld by U.S. military power. But is that doctrine set to change?
February 24 marked the third year since the onset of hostilities in the Ukrainian theatre and at that point in 2022, only seven NATO members were meeting the obligatory 2 percent of GDP on defense spending. Today, that figure is expected to rise to 23. However, defense spending is not a tap that can be turn on and off; for the U.S., it has long run dry.
In the view of many critics, western Europe's famed welfare systems have been the beneficiaries of U.S. subsidies by way of defense provisions. It is worth noting that U.S. dominance and an outsized role since 1945 have also been by design.
During the 1956 Suez Crisis, Washington famously pulled its support for France and the United Kingdom in a major blow to the influence the two imperial powers once had. America's place at the top of global power structures required others to vacate their seats. In more recent times, the frustration over funding have been expressed. In 2016, then-U.S. President Barack Obama told Europe that it had been "complacent about its own defense."
For European leaders today, U.S. President Donald Trump's political comments and apparent abandonment of the previous political consensus on the Ukraine conflict are of far greater concern. European leaders can accept a deepening urgency to ramp up defense spending, but they feel ideologically aggrieved – by Trump's unsubstantiated claim that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy only has an approval rating of 4 percent and that he is a "dictator without elections," despite the Ukrainian Constitution forbidding elections while the country is under martial law; at U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance's chiding and comments regarding "the enemy within" Europe; and over what Germany in particular sees as U.S. meddling in its recent election.
Having seen his party secure the most seats in recent Germany's general election, Friedrich Merz, chairman of Germany's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), laid out his concerns in an alarmingly blunt fashion. "I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements last week, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe."
Indeed, so deep are Merz's concern over the direction Washington is taking that he later remarked: "Whether we will still be talking about NATO in its current form or whether we will have to establish an independent European defense capability much more quickly."
Calling NATO's future into question reveals a great schism and in respect to Ukraine, could lead to grave consequences. Coordination between partners is essential for preserving peace. But if the U.S. withdraws further, could the door be opened to other nations guaranteeing peace?
File photo of the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, March 24, 2022. /Xinhua
The prospect may seem outlandish, but there could indeed be merit in a third-party nation, less encumbered by shared history and militarily capable of playing a role in peacekeeping efforts. This could even happen in rotation, as it does with the United Nations.
Indeed, the tone has already shifted, with United Kingdom Prime Minister Kier Starmer signing the 100-year partnership agreement and declaring that he is "prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground if there is a lasting peace agreement."
At present, Starmer has caveated his position by saying that "there must be a U.S. backstop." The emphasis of a European-led endeavor underwritten by U.S. power could be replicated for other partners, but the question remains: What would be the rules of engagement if peacekeeping forces came under fire? This carries alarming consequences, but a multinational effort could mitigate them.
On Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Washington for talks with Trump in a bid to seek clarity over Washington's position on Zelenskyy personally and on the Ukraine conflict as a whole. Macron said in a joint press conference that while Europe must "more fairly share the security burden," peace in Ukraine "must not be a surrender of Ukraine; it must not mean a ceasefire without guarantees."
Macron's visit will be followed up by Starmer on Thursday, and although the press conference may have calmed the debate to some extent, there was a definite preference for Trump to outline his preoccupation with securing rare-earth metal rights in Ukraine instead of specifying the security guarantees Kiev is demanding in return.
At an event marking three years since the start of the conflict, the UK, France, Germany and Japan instructed representatives to make statements, but once again, the U.S was no-show, clearly opting out of multilateral dialogue.
The U.S. has assumed a great deal of strength in its unilateral initiation of talks and the way it has decided to conduct itself by excluding other parties. But the short-term surge could well leave once-unwavering allies looking to insulate themselves from U.S. hegemony and seeking alternative sources of power.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)