Sarah Ingham is author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.
As militaries across Europe geared up for NATO’s largest exercise since the Cold War last weekend, in South Carolina Donald Trump launched an anti-alliance salvo.
With typical bombast, the once and probable future president told a campaign rally that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” with “delinquent” countries which refused to pay their NATO dues. “You got to pay your bills.”
The counter-attack was swift. Joe Biden condemned the remarks as “dumb; shameful; dangerous and un-American”; Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, said that they “put American and European soldiers at increased risk”. Trump was accused of giving succour to Moscow and undermining the alliance’s core principle, Article 5: an attack on one is an attack on all.
NATO’s militaries kept calm and carried on preparing for exercise Steadfast Defender. British troops and 600 armoured vehicles sailed from Southampton to Poland: HMS Prince of Wales headed from Portsmouth to Norwegian waters to lead the multinational strike group. It sent “a powerful message of collective security and deterrence” said Grant Shapps.
Yet amidst all the sound and fury prompted by Trump on both sides of the Atlantic, the highly inconvenient truth is that he is correct. In the defence context, too many European countries have been delinquent for decades, refusing to pay their way and instead expecting American taxpayers to pick up the tab.
The West’s economic and cultural superpower, America is an awe-inspiring country. It can, however, be brutal for those left behind. Out of 50 states, South Carolina came tenth from last in terms of annual median household income between 2018-2022 ($63,623), but tenth from the top of households aged under 65 of without health insurance (11.1 per cent).
Many voters at the rally in Conway SC would surely be grateful for the health and welfare safety net available in Consett, and would surely wonder why their federal tax dollars are subsidising the defence of County Durham. Trump’s attack on NATO members’ reluctance to invest in their security was far from unwelcome: midweek, a CBS News poll showed he had a 20-point lead in the state’s primary over rival Nikki Haley – its former governor.
The Second World War ended almost eighty years ago. American involvement in the defence of Europe continued as relations between the West and Moscow broke down and froze into the nuclear-armed stasis of the Cold War. Established in 1949 “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”, NATO was a product of its era.
Despite the end of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, more than three decades on the Americans are still “in” – which has proven a decidedly mixed blessing.
Sheltering cosily under the US security umbrella, successive governments across Europe were allowed to shirk their defence responsibilities. This is typified by the lack of financial investment, the refusal to engage the civilian population in either the concept or practicalities of civil defence, and lax immigration vetting.
The invasion of Ukraine (the second anniversary is next week) shocked Europe’s governments out of their defence-related complacency. As Stoltenberg said on Wednesday, there is now record spending on defence among the alliance’s European partners, with 18 out of 31 expected to hit the (measly) two per cent GDP target – up from three in 2014.
Despite war on their continent, NATO’s European members still expect the United States to do the heavy financial and military lifting. This pass-the-buck mindset is so pervasive it is unremarkable – but reinforces Trump’s point.
Yesterday, a BBC Today presenter began an item: “As the US drags its feet on delivering billions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine …” as David Cameron urged Congress to pass the Ukraine funding package; failure to do so was likened to appeasement.
If, as Cameron says, the West collectively wants “to show this dangerous, uncertain world that we are unbending in our will”, perhaps it is time for nations across Europe to focus on warfare rather than welfare and make some choices. We British might scoff at the under-equipped German army’s use of broomsticks instead of guns in 2015, but how seriously are we taking the defence of our realm?
As General Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the army, talked up the prospect of war, in recent weeks a troubling picture of Britain’s Armed Forces emerged: a Royal Marine recruitment crisis; severe under-manning; a mooted relaxation of security checks for Royal Navy recruits; a fixation within the MoD on diversity and inclusion; Army numbers at a modern-day low.
Amidst fluff about rainbow flags, the horrific reality of what the war-fighting Armed Forces of Ukraine are enduring is forgotten. They are short of ammunition and General Valerii Zaluzhny, their former Commander-in-Chief, warned of stalemate.
Here, government figures this week show that defence spending with UK industry is at a record £25bn. But celebrations are muted by questions about whether our taxes are being spent wisely.
Instead of leading Steadfast Defender, the flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth is again in dock under repair. HMS Prince of Wales has suffered similarly. This snagging with Britain’s new aircraft carriers is a demoralising national embarrassment. In 2022/23, defence cost each person living in the UK £370; the case for upping this by perhaps 50p a day is undermined by taxpayers’ perception that money will be squandered.
Should America retreat from NATO we might have no choice but to increase the defence budget. Meanwhile, Trump is popular because he speaks for many American citizens.
We should be grateful for their continuing generosity. Any US president is not only Commander-in-Chief but head of state and deserves the respect of office. Puerile short-sighted stunts, such as Sadiq Khan’s baby blimp, won’t help Ukraine.
Source link
#Sarah #Ingham #lecture #Americans #defence #spending #Conservative #Home