It’s been a busy week in the politics of European defence. But every major news point from the week has confirmed how much danger Europe is in, and how little some of its key allies are willing to do about it.
The findings of the UK’s inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess, released this week, demonstrate not only Russia’s ruthlessness but also the severe impact that even a limited Russian attack can have on unprepared societies like Britain.
But in the same week, the latest iteration of the so-called “peace process“ over Ukraine demonstrated once again how Europe as a whole is still paralysed by denial and magical thinking over the nature of the threat from Russia and what is needed to withstand it.
In part, this results from a degree of necessary play-acting on the part of European leaders. They know that in public, they have to engage with the United States on its terms, and pretend that US negotiations with Moscow over the heads of Ukraine and Europe are a meaningful step towards eventual peace.
We have to hope that is what lies behind NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s nonsensical declaration that Donald Trump is the only man in the world that can bring peace to Ukraine – and that he hasn’t genuinely forgotten that Vladimir Putin can end his war at any moment.
But as notes from private meetings reportedly reveal, this pantomime is accompanied by a realisation behind the scenes that the United States does not see the same future for Europe as those European leaders have taken for granted.
Also this week, that fact was definitively confirmed by the release of the US‘s new National Security Strategy, which describes not Russia, but the EU and its ideologies, as the primary threat to Europe.
The National Security Strategy also confirms what was clear to any objective observer from the start: that the Trump administration’s priorities in bringing the war to an end are not built around the vital (for Europe) need to deter Russia from its next war of imperial reconquest.
In the meantime, we are already on the third iteration of a familiar cycle of US attempts to enforce Russia surrender terms on Ukraine, masquerading as “peace talks”.
Once again, the only reason European leaders were blindsided by the process is because they themselves have not been willing or able to take an active part in it. Europe’s strategic passivity, exacerbated by the aftermath of 30 years of reductions in defence spending, mean that the initiative lies elsewhere – and as long as this continues, Europe cannot complain that it is being ignored by the United States.
The US also wants to make sure Russia’s frozen assets are not redirected to helping Ukraine resist Russia’s invasion – but it has only seen the opportunity to step in and save them because of Europe’s four-year-long dithering in doing anything about them.
It’s true that it is essential to continue to engage with the United States in a way that delays as much as possible the prospect of America ceasing all security corporation with Europe as well as direct support for Ukraine. However, that has to be just one element of a two-part strategy, where the second part is urgent preparation for when that prospect becomes a reality. And it is that urgent preparation that is so little in evidence across much of Western Europe.
The contrast between those countries that are willing to admit the danger and those that prefer to pretend it is not there is growing more stark by the day.
The UK has long abandoned its previous position of defence leadership in Europe, and now is accelerating rapidly backwards in terms of relative commitment to defence. After Putin‘s latest threat to Europe this week, saying that Russia was ready for war, Keir Starmer was asked the same question – but couldn’t say yes.
What the UK needs now is for that accidental outbreak of honesty to be translated into urgent action.
Europe’s problem is not just the UK, of course. Even leaving aside the ambivalent position of Hungary and Slovakia in standing against Russia, even notionally solid NATO allies are determinedly missing the point.
The Belgian prime minister explained in detail this week how his response to being threatened by Russia was to immediately roll over and surrender. And Italy’s foreign minister has slipped back into delusional thinking about the nature of European defence even before the fighting has ended, saying that “if we reach an agreement and fighting ceases, weapons won’t be needed any more.”
And it’s not just the readiness of the armed forces that is compromised as a result. The essential revival of defence industries that must support them has also been hamstrung by European infighting. France has blocked the UK from providing arms for the EU’s new defence procurement scheme, by demanding a 2 billion euro bribe to do so (while Canada was charged just 10 million euro for the same right to provide arms to defend Europe).
There is no excuse for anybody to be surprised at Europe’s emergency. It could so clearly be seen coming that I described it in detail in a book I wrote last year. But so little was done to avert it that it is now out in paperback, with a new foreword describing just now much more trouble we are in after another year of inaction.
And the other key element in the crisis that hasn’t changed is Russia’s determination to press on in its attacks on Europe. NATO, belatedly, has started to talk about how it might respond to the ongoing campaign of sabotage across the continent, as well as cajoling its European member states into meeting their own defence commitments.
But unless and until European leaders face up to the threat and respond with the urgency it demands, they will continue to be seen in Moscow as a soft target. The tragic death of Dawn Sturgess should ram home for all of us that it is not just innocent civilians in Ukraine, but across the continent, that are in danger as a result.
