Our five questions this time go to Wolfgang Pusztai. We spoke to the political and security analyst, who works at the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy, about security issues relating to the EU and the USA.
Mr. Pusztai, Donald Trump already criticized the Europeans’ low military spending during his first term of office. In the meantime, the countries have significantly increased their military spending. Nevertheless, there are still eight European NATO members that spend less than 2 percent of their GDP. Would that be a reason for Trump not to honor NATO commitments in the event of an attack on the EU?
If an EU country that is also a NATO member is attacked, it is safe to assume that the USA will fulfill its duty to provide assistance. All European NATO states have also committed to further increasing their defense spending. With the exception of Norway (2.2 percent), all member states directly bordering Russia already spend more than 2.4 percent of their GDP on defense. Poland even spends 4.12% of its GDP on defense (-> Poland on the way to becoming the strongest army in Europe) and wants to increase this proportion further. This is why the US President said at the controversial meeting with Ukrainian President Selensky in the Oval Office: “I am very committed to Poland. […] We’re going to be very committed and we’re committed to NATO, but NATO has to step up and the Europeans have to step up more […]”.
However, strengthening the European pillar of NATO is a necessity anyway, regardless of Trump’s insistence. This is beneficial for America and Europe and would also free up American resources for the Pacific region in order to create a sufficient counterweight to China there. This is certainly also in Europe’s interest.
In this context, it should be borne in mind that a large-scale military attack by Russia on NATO would probably begin at the common border. A military attack by Russia on an EU country that is not a member of NATO seems highly unlikely to me for geographical reasons alone.
“The US Vice President ‘overlooks’ the fact that European countries have already made significant contributions to US-led non-European military operations in the past.”
With reference to the US attacks on the Huthi rebels in Yemen , Vice President JD Vance raised the question of whether the Europeans should be made to pay for these military strikes. Could the EU-US relationship develop in the future in such a way that Europe is asked to pay for any US aid? For example, for US intelligence information on counter-terrorism?
The US Vice President “overlooks” the fact that the European states have already made considerable contributions in the past to US led non-European military operations, which are primarily in the American interest.
Nevertheless, it is to be expected that the USA will increasingly push for European participation in military operations in the future, which – such as securing shipping in the Red Sea – are primarily in the European interest. In future, it will probably no longer be sufficient for France and the UK to participate in such operations to any significant extent. Symbolic participation in the “non-combat area” by other NATO states, especially Germany, will no longer be enough.
I rule out any “payment” or direct quid pro quo for US intelligence information on counter-terrorism, i.e. for the direct prevention of terrorist attacks.
Embraer C-390M: Schweden steigt in österreichisch-niederländischen Vertrag ein
If you follow the rhetoric of the Trump administration, you can come to the conclusion that Europe is a burden for Washington: an alliance of states that demands money and attention from the USA without Washington benefiting from it. What advantages does the EU alliance partner bring the USA?
American involvement within NATO has not been free of self-interest ever since the alliance was founded. This has not changed under Donald Trump. The leading role in NATO has several tangible advantages for the USA. In particular, it enables the de facto domination of a huge arms market, partly because NATO’s technological standards are generally determined by US industry.
NATO is an instrument for containing Russian influence not only in Europe, but also in the Arctic and partly in the Pacific, i.e. in regions that are becoming increasingly important for the USA. It offers the USA a pool of interoperable partners for global military operations to counter common threats.
U.S. access to NATO territory is a tremendous geostrategic advantage that extends its strategic reach and provides access to forward bases for global operations, including ballistic missile defense (BMD) and anti-submarine warfare.
The state-of-the-art Ballistic Missile Early Warning (BMEW) radar stations at Fylingdales in the north of England and in Greenland at Pituffik Space Base play an essential role in the early warning and tracking of ballistic missiles threatening the American continent. Fylingdales also has a central role in BMD for the European continent and neighboring areas. Other, smaller and partly mobile BMEW radars in several NATO countries also serve to counter the threat from missiles from Iran.
The bottlenecks in the North Atlantic between Greenland, Iceland and Great Britain and north of Norway are of great importance for the detection and tracking of Russian nuclear submarines as part of the American Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS).
The EU’s high level of involvement in the Ukraine war(-> current news from the Ukraine war) is often argued that if Ukraine loses the war, Russia would attack the EU next. Do you share this view?
No, I don’t see it that way! While the Russian armed forces have extensive war experience, they have suffered very heavy losses, including a significant number of personnel – especially officers and NCOs – and a large amount of modern equipment. These losses occurred in a conflict with a nation that lacks a functioning air force, stealth jets and other essential capabilities. Russian air defenses are even struggling to defend against the relatively simple drone attacks of the Ukrainians.
Given the capabilities of the Russian defense industry, it will take at least a decade for Moscow to rebuild its armed forces with a larger number of modern equipment, which may already be obsolete by the time it enters service.
The change in the geostrategic situation in Northern Europe following the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO has made potential Russian aggression against NATO much riskier. St. Petersburg is now only 150 kilometers away from two NATO countries. Finland, with its 1,340-kilometer border with Russia, would provide the strategic depth for a possible counter-offensive against Murmansk and the naval bases of the Northern Fleet – with more than half of Russia’s nuclear submarines. Consequently, in the event of aggression, Russia would have to devote enormous resources to securing its northern flank, which would significantly limit other military operations.
“Overall, military aggression by Russia against NATO is very unlikely.”
In recent decades, Europe has relied on the US defense umbrella and significantly reduced its arms spending. We hear of armies in tatters, outdated equipment and a shortage of recruits. Would the EU be able to fend off an attack by Russia on a Baltic state, for example?
This question does not arise as long as NATO exists. NATO’s “Forward Presence” in the Baltic States and other Eastern European member states, which also includes a considerable number of American troops, is intended to demonstrate the Alliance’s unity and deter Russia. It ensures that in the event of Russian military aggression, NATO – including the United States – would be immediately and automatically involved in the war.
Overall, military aggression by Russia against NATO is very unlikely, but cannot be completely ruled out – especially if Moscow expects the Western alliance to break apart. It is important to remember that Putin started the war against Ukraine due to a misinterpretation of several “signals”.
Here for the other articles in our “5 questions to” series and here for another article on the topic: Is a new civil war looming in Syria?
