Europe’s path to global influence 1/2

To truly become a great power, the bloc will need a political structure that enables it to exercise the leadership long provided by the U.S. Opinion March 11, 2025 4:00 am CET By Peter Rough and Abram Shulsky

Europe is suddenly in a hurry.Apparently, the U.S. administration’s overtures to Russia and its suspension of military assistance to Ukraine reminded the continent’s leaders of the cynical adage that one is either at the table or on the menu.

“There is only one thing that counts, and that is speed,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in February, announcing a 70 percent increase in military spending. Meanwhile, in neighboring Germany, Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz is reportedly finalizing a special fund for the Bundeswehr worth hundreds of billions of euros. And the EU’s High Representative forForeign Affairs Kaja Kallas even argued that “it’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge” of leading the free world.(KEKKITY, that will never happen, they cannot even agree in the EU, not including EuropeThe article explains the very reason they will never get together on Continent Self Defense.)

But is Europe really on the cusp of transforming into a geopolitical power?

In terms of population, technological development, and economic size and strength, Europe could easily qualify as a great power.However, the continent’s future will depend on more than its nations’ abilityto convert their economic might into defense capabilities.

To truly become the great powersome aspire it to be, Europe will need a political structure that enables it to exercise the leadership long provided by the U.S. And its outlookfor forging such a structure faces significant hurdles.

Today, two powerful institutions occupy center stage on the continent: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO)and the European Union(EU).

Yet, neither can be easily convertedinto a vehicle for European self-protection and power projection.

For starters, the U.S. has dominated NATO since its inception. It’s possible to conceive of the alliance’s reorganization into U.S. and European spheres, with military commands for the continent assigned to European forces and the position of top military leader — the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) — given to a European instead of an American.

However, it’s difficult to think of anyEuropean power conceding that post to an officer from a European rival.(Plus the US contributes close to 60% to NATO, with many not paying. So creating this new structure would lose US's money, and it will fail mightly.)

Knowing that thealliance’s military leader would always be an American avoided the political competitionthat historically afflicted Europe. If that were to change, would, say, the Élysée accept a German or British SACEUR?

Moreover, the alliance’s European side would, by necessity, include many nations with foreign policies that might be in conflict with those of its core powers. And even if these leaders could be convinced to hold back their vetoes on a given issue, the delays required for arm-twisting could be considerable — as was demonstrated by the drawn-out process of Sweden’s accession to NATO.

Using such a slow and plodding decision-making structure to attain consensus on matters of continental security doesn’t amplify great power status — it impedes it.

Moving on to the EU, making modifications there would raise similar problems.

Creating a unified command structurefor the bloc would requirecentralizing bureaucracyto an unprecedented degree. And just as the EU’s foreign minister — the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy — is often overshadowed by the foreign ministers of major European countries,it’s hard to imaginea European commander in chiefoutranking the chiefs of staff of France or Germany.

Europe remains a mosaic of nation states more than a federal system— the preferences of some of its elites notwithstanding. So, unless anduntil the bloc evolvesinto something resembling a United States of Europe, any concerted effort to project the continent’s power will require its major players to form a multilateral military staff.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-europe-path-global-influence-us-russia-ukraine-military-aid/

>>22742245

2/2

An historical precedent for this does exist.During World War II, Washington and London formed the Combined Chiefs. And while their decisions were, of course, subject to the approval of the British prime minister and the U.S. president, they created a degree of cooperation that had yet to be seen at the military level.

Unfortunately, though, the establishment of a similar structure for contemporary Europe would raise several difficult questions.

First, how many countries would participate?The number of EU members is far higher than any concept of bureaucratic efficiency would allow. And if all countries can’t participate, which ones should?

While objective considerations of size, militarycapability and foreign policy tradition might suggestthe U.K., France, Germany, Poland and, perhaps, Italy as a plausible starting point, any initial organizational structure would also lead to acacophony of objections.

What’s more, a combined staff responsible forunifying the continent’s forces and acquiring equipment could also cause intragovernmental difficultiesin countries where military officers haven’t been major foreign policy players.

And any arrangementthat prioritizes Europe’s larger powerswould require its smaller countries, including those most exposed to Russia’s revanchism, to plug into the command via one of the larger powers. This formal inequality would be a major break with the bloc’s founding ideology — though perhaps not with its practice.

Nevertheless, if Europe is to possess military capabilitiescommensurate with a leading global role, some new organizational structure will be necessary. And the level of effort to establishEurope’s autonomy will be directly proportional to the depth of shock it can absorb from the shifts currently underway in U.S. policy.

These shocks might even rise to the level of questioning whether Europe needs an independent nuclear deterrent — something that would make any potential command structure an even more sensitive issue and require a reassessment of existing nuclear capabilities.

During World War II, the U.S. and the U.K. were able to successfully project power becausethey shared not only a common language but also a common political heritage. The nations of Europe share much less. And only time will tell whether they’re prepared to take on the challenge of overcoming their differences.

Peter Rough and Abram Shulsky are senior fellows at Hudson Institute.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-europe-path-global-influence-us-russia-ukraine-military-aid/

In other words, Europe, EU, and NATO cannot even come closeto a Military bloc that could ever work. They fight too much among themselves, and they don’t have a Federal System. They of course will never admit that.

So the US may always be involved in their security.

Finally Europeans cannot be the leaders of the Free World, because no one is united on anything, and much less on War and Leadership. They all sound like arrogant children.

There’s a reason why the US is the Leader of the Free World, because our country came in and saved your asses through many wars you started, and we lost 100's of 1000's soldiers for you and countries around the world.

Until you do that for other continents, you are only Leaders of your arrogant childish demands.

Excellent Analysis of Reality about all the barking and complaining and condemnation of the US by Europe, EU and NATO are incapable, they just waist time in the long, boring meetings, how they can hurt America.

Europe’s reliance on US weapons has risen, SIPRI says

But markets believe the continent is about to experience a boost in domestic production as Russia’s threat looms.

By John T Psaropoulos Published On 10 Mar 2025

Europe’s imports of weapons made by the United States have skyrocketed in the past five years, raising serious questions about whether the continent can achieve its vaunted goal of defence autonomy.

New research released on Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading defence and armaments think tank, showsEurope increased its imports of weapons two-and-a-half times over in the past five yearscompared with the previous five years. Two-thirds of those imports came from the United States.

Europe’s ability to build its own weapons will materially affect how well it can defend Ukraine after a US arms cut-off, Matthew George, director of the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme, told Al Jazeera.

“On one side, you have states increasing arms to counter the ‘Russian threat’ but on the other,states will need to figure how they rearm and build up while also transferring stocks to Ukraine,” he said.

Most European Union members did not begin boosting their domestic weapons production until last year, the third year of Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine.

“The West wasted these three yearsand didn’t prepare itself for this protracted war or any kind of horizontal escalations,” Oleksandr Danylyuk, an expert for the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told Al Jazeera.

“We have an escalation in terms of increasing numbers of Russian troops and bringing North Koreans into the war.The West hasn’t been prepared, unfortunately, but better late than never.”

(It’s too late still, what if the US turns off arms sales to Europe because we know they are continuing the Ukraine War, when PDJT and America is trying to make peace, I wouldn’t doubt Trump would consider that, they should too.)

Some observers are optimistic Europe will turn itself around.(Which means, most are not!)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/10/europes-reliance-on-us-weapons-has-risen-says-sipri

Look at the chart, some countries not involved in Ukraine, increased theirs, most of the countries supporting Ukraine, bought little or minus % arms in 2020-2024, how does that make sense, do they even have arms to protect their own countries.