ShareThis Page

Europe's defense bill

| Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

This month in Poland, President Obama offered $1 billion in military assistance to address our NATO allies' anxiety about a resurgent Kremlin. Labeled the European Reassurance Initiative, this boosts NATO's budget by a mere 0.1 percent.

It was nonetheless received with enthusiasm by European partners happy to have a Band-Aid to cover up an unpleasant truth: For decades, our NATO allies have so underinvested in creating their own security forces that when Vladimir Putin moved 40,000 Russian troops to Ukraine's border, they had no capacity to respond.

The European Union's population is triple Russia's and its economy is eight times larger, yet it spends 60 percent less on defense than Russia does relative to GDP. Such miserly investment helps explain Europe's impotence in response to Putin. For Washington, this state of affairs is untenable. For Europe, it should be unacceptable.

This month's commemoration of D-Day was a fitting reminder of American sacrifices for European security. On June 6, 1944, 73,000 Americans landed on the beaches of Normandy to take the ground war to the European continent. Before Germany surrendered 11 months later, more than 180,000 Americans had given their final measure in Europe.

World War II left Europe in ruins. In what British Prime Minister Clement Attlee called an “act of unparalleled generosity and statesmanship,” the United States contributed more than 5 percent of its GDP (the equivalent of $840 billion today) to reconstruct Europe.

Later, when Soviet troops occupied the nations of Eastern Europe and the Soviet sector of Berlin and threatened to undermine Western European states, Americans responded. NATO became the greatest military alliance of all time, complete with an American nuclear umbrella to deter Soviet nuclear threats even though this meant risking Boston for Berlin.

When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down in 1989, Americans took the lead in helping Germany recover East Germany and emerge as a unified state in the EU and NATO. When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Americans again took the lead, working with the new Russia to eliminate nuclear weapons left elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and to secure the weapons that were returned to Russia.

Moscow was persuaded to recognize the independence and sovereignty of formerly occupied Eastern and Central Europe and the emerging states of the former Soviet Union. The U.S.-led NATO admitted 12 states from Eastern and Central Europe to its ranks, including Poland and the Baltic states. To this day, Americans risk their lives to protect the security of citizens in Europe.

This defense is not cheap and it is not balanced. Americans spend about $2,300 per head on defense, including the defense of Europe. Europeans spend $550 per head on their own defense.

What did European NATO members do when Russian troops appeared on the border of Ukraine? What they have always done: Call USA-911. But for war-weary Americans determined to reduce unsustainable deficits by cutting federal expenditures, including defense, the current arrangement appears increasingly anachronistic.

As the Ukraine crisis reminded Europe's leaders about threats on their continent, it is past time for Europeans to ask less what America can do for them and more what they can do for European security.

Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.