We wrote here about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s seminal speech to NATO leaders in Brussels, where he warned that Europeans must be primarily responsible for dealing with the Russian threat. Russia is not, for the U.S., a peer rival, Hegseth said. But China is. America’s focus will be on its rivalry with China and the need to protect our borders. As to Russia, we can help, but Europeans must take the lead.
Hegseth’s speech sent shock waves through European capitals. Of course, President Trump has been castigating European leaders about the need for them to increase their defense capabilities since his first term in office. But Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its persistent refusal to make peace, along with Hegseth’s stark words, have concentrated the Europeans’ minds.
Thus, the London Times reports:
Britain is moving towards “war-fighting readiness”, according to defence secretary John Healey, to deal with “a new era of threat”. He and the prime minister, in presenting the government’s strategic defence review a few days ago, appeared certain of what needed to be done, though rather less sure of how to pay for it.
***
If we take 2030 as a benchmark and use Office for Budget Responsibility figures, increasing defence spending from the current 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product to 3 per cent would cost an extra £24 billion a year, while 3.5 per cent — a target that Nato is expected to push for — would mean £42 billion more.Going to 5 per cent — a figure that is also increasingly being talked about in Nato circles, including by America, and which has not been achieved in the UK since the mid-1980s — would cost an additional £95 billion a year.
The Times article goes on to pose the question whether Britain can afford to pay for both its post-WWII welfare state and enough military readiness to deter Russian aggression.
NATO’s secretary general poses the problem in even sharper terms:
People in Britain had “better learn to speak Russian” if they are not prepared to increase defence spending to 5 per cent and meet the growing military threat from President Putin, the secretary-general of Nato has warned.
Mark Rutte said that all Nato countries were “on the eastern flank now” as the latest advances in Russian missile technology allowed Putin’s forces to hit targets in western nations in “a matter of minutes”.
He said Russia was producing more ammunition in three months than the whole of Nato turned out in a year, and could threaten the alliance militarily within three to five years.
***
Asked whether he believed that taxes should rise to fund the new spending, Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister, said that countries such as the UK would have to decide whether and how to pay to protect themselves. “If you do not do this, if you would not go to the 5 per cent, you could still have the National Health Service, the pension system et cetera, but you had better learn to speak Russian,” he said.
The Germans are worried too:
The chief of Germany’s foreign intelligence service warned that his agency has “concrete” evidence that Russia is planning an attack on Nato territory.
Bruno Kahl, the outgoing head of Germany’s federal intelligence service (BND), said in a rare interview that Russian leadership no longer believes Nato’s article 5 guarantee of mutual assistance will be honoured — and may seek to test it.
“We are very sure, and we have intelligence evidence to back this up, that [Russia’s full-scale invasion of] Ukraine is only one step on Russia’s path towards the west,” he told a podcast of German outlet Table Briefings.
So the Europeans are getting serious about defense, or at least talking seriously. But whether they are willing to do enough remains to be seen.
One problem that nearly all the European Union countries face is sclerotic economic growth. It is much easier to pay for both guns and butter in a rapidly growing economy. But there is good reason to think that a welfare state mentality doesn’t only lead to out of control government spending, it also depresses innovation, risk-taking and growth. The Europeans need to break out of that downward cycle, but it is impossible to say, at this point, whether they will be able to do so.
