President Trump and his team are not making new arguments about the US no longer being the guarantor of European security. Some Republicans were opposed to the original “Truman Doctrine” laid out in 1947. Senators in Washington put forward proposals to reduce US troops on the continent in the 1970s and 1980s. It was a Democrat from Georgia, Sam Nunn, who argued in 1984 that Nato members had to spend more: “If we do not have allies that are going to do their part, there is no need for the American taxpayer to continue to spend billions of dollars.”
And Robert Gates used one of his last speeches as US defence secretary in 2011 to criticise Nato for having two tiers: those willing to go to war and those who simply talked about it. He arguably saw Trump and Hegseth coming, warning that his Cold War generation was giving way to a new era of leaders where a focus on Europe was not a priority.
The point is this: none of the recent developments is a total shock. Given both the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the prospect of President Trump’s return to the White House, Nato members should have been better prepared. When Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s president, said that all of Europe had responded to the 2022 wake-up call, I am not sure everyone would agree.
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said: “The average spending of Nato countries is 1.9 percent of GDP. Despite long discussions, despite nice plans, we are still below the threshold of 2 percent. We have to be honest to ourselves and do much more. My country is ready to do what is needed and recently we have announced that defence spending in 2026-2030 should reach the level of 5 to 6 percent of GDP.” Perhaps now, with this summit in Paris, the message is finally getting across.
If a turning point for Nato was evident, Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference was not entirely expected. “The threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”
U.S Vice President JD Vance
The vice president criticised what he called an assault on free speech and democracy in Europe, alleging that the countries on the continent had ignored their citizens by shutting down their opinions; viewpoints they were afraid of hearing. “There is no room for firewalls,” he said.
Given Elon Musk’s support for the far-right AfD in Germany, Vance’s words were a clear signal as he spoke in Germany just days before a decisive federal election. Firewalls exist within German politics to freeze out the far-right in a country where that branch of politics led to war and mass murder.
Vergangenheitsbewältigung, they call it; coming to terms with the past. It is interesting to reflect on that phrase; how we absorb and understand history, as we appear to be approaching a new world order.
When Gates said the new generation would not have the same Cold War knowledge of his ilk, is this what he meant? A Washington less keen to criticise Moscow than attack London and Stockholm? And a White House chastising those who seek to diminish the far-right in the country of Nazism?
Critical moment in European history
History has so many lessons and consequences. I am reminded of recently watching the film, September 5, about the ABC sports team who covered the Israeli hostage crisis at the 1972 Olympic Games. Another event in Munich. At times, the American journalists are incredulous that there are no armed guards patrolling the Olympic village and that German soldiers cannot use weapons inside their own country. Of course, when it is explained to them that this is a country learning its lessons from world war, they understand. But it shows how good intentions can lead to unintended consequences.
America’s approach after 1945 to defend Europe against communist expansionism has now led to a Washington that no longer seeks to be a bulwark against tyranny, unless the continent seemingly bends to its political will. Germany’s approach to dealing extensively with its Nazi past has meant some, like Elon Musk, now argue it’s taken on too much guilt, something he said recently at an AfD rally. The Baltic states’ approach to their past meant they joined Nato to defend against Russian aggression, something then used as a reason by Moscow for invading Ukraine.
Which brings us back to where we started: the eastern flank of Nato and the difference between the west and the east within the alliance. For all the fear of nuclear conflict, the Cold War was a remarkably calm and stable period. That was partly because the USSR did not have expansionist ambitions as was feared, given they already had many Eastern European nations under their command. The western nations of Nato look back at that period as an example of the alliance doing its work.
But since 1990, the unifying nature of the US-Europe alliance – a defence against the Soviet Union – has fallen, and arguably, we’re not really sure what has replaced it. As the historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote in “The Age of Extremes”: “The years around 1990 clearly were such a secular turning-point. But, while everyone could see that the old had ended, there was utter uncertainty about the nature and prospects of the new.”
A man hammers away at the Berlin Wall on 12 Nov, 1989
The new era meant that Nato expanded and took on countries that seek no return to Moscow’s subjugation and want the alliance to be far more of a deterrence than it has ever been in its history. This is not the Cold War. Is it more dangerous? Well, we have a Russian president arguably more expansionist than Joseph Stalin, who reminisces about the USSR and the Russian empire and recreating Moscow’s greatness.
And with the USA no longer seeing itself as a military defender of Europe, this is a most critical moment in European history.
Watch more here:
Europe calls emergency summit over Ukraine
Zelenskyy calls for European army amid fears of reduced US support
Ukraine war: Trump works with Putin as Nato and Europe sidelined
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=67b3f568fb7c4f7b93373bb8688002be&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.channel4.com%2Fnews%2Fis-this-most-decisive-moment-for-us-and-europe-since-end-of-cold-war&c=16133128074918575095&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2025-02-17 08:20:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
