Can Europe defend itself on its own?
Even before the tug-of-war with Washington over Greenland, Europe was pondering whether and how it could take its military security into its own hands. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte has now dismissed such ideas with the words "keep on dreaming", stressing that Europe cannot defend itself without the US. Commentators take stock of the security situation on the continent.
Higher budgets won't be accepted
Europe's strategic autonomy remains a pipe dream, Interia comments:
“Rutte is right on one point. The high cost of strategic autonomy for Europe would be politically unacceptable – especially in countries like Germany or France. A jump from around 2 to 10 percent [of GDP for defence spending] would sweep away any political party that proposed such a solution to voters in peacetime. High defence spending in countries like Poland and Estonia is directly linked to a sense of being under threat that does not exist in Western Europe.”
Berlin needs transatlantic relations
Germany is particularly dependent on the United States, and it knows it, political scientist Fausta Šimaitytė comments in Delfi:
“The US offers Europe a 'nuclear shield', including some 20 atomic bombs stored in Germany. However there are widely expressed doubts as to whether this shield would actually be used in an emergency. ... Germany has considerable ground forces and a strong arms industry but can currently only engage in low-intensity conflicts. In the event of a large-scale war, it would have difficulties defending its own territory and that of its eastern allies without the support of the US. As long as Plan B is not in place, Berlin is doing everything it can to avoid jeopardising transatlantic relations.”
The EU must make this happen
Nato in its current form is obsolete, Lapin Kansa stresses:
“Some members of the Finnish government still seem to believe that the situation will normalise once Trump's term in office is over and the White House has a new leader. This hope is probably in vain. Everything points to the new world order being here to stay. ... The old Nato must be replaced as quickly as possible by a new defence alliance whose backbone is formed by the European EU and Nato countries. Money should not be an obstacle. The EU remains the second largest economic region in the world. It need not kowtow to either Russia or the United States.”
Five years to transfer command
Military experts Julián García Vargas and José Manuel García Sieiro explain Europe's new role in Nato in ABC:
“The only truly operational command centre in Europe is Nato's Supreme Headquarters. ... Its authority lies with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who has always been an American so far, with a European as his deputy. The Europeans should propose that the entire leadership of the headquarters be gradually transferred to European military personnel. ... Preparations would have to be made for America's future presence to be limited to nuclear protection of Europe and providing a strategic reserve. ... This process will take at least five years.”
Face up to the harsh reality
Europeans need to stop kidding themselves, Corriere della Sera urges:
“If the world will never be the same again, then Europe too will never be what it hoped to be. Not only is its current disappointing, outdated state being called into question in the new world order, but also its aspirations, ideals and self-image. This logic is so harsh that many staunch Europeans reject it and instead tell themselves a comforting story: what is happening is not a real break but just a transition; sooner or later everything will go back to the way it was before, and all they need to do is give Trump a few bases in Greenland and Putin a slice of Donbas to get the world back on its feet. Believing this fairy tale remains the only way to believe in a Europe that no longer exists.”