THE END OF PARASITISM: IF EUROPE WON'T PAY, AMERICA WON'T DEFEND

Europe's NATO Bluff: Enough With Accounting Tricks and Unjustified Demands

Lately, the debate on military spending and transatlantic security has become increasingly heated, especially here in Italy. Unfortunately, we still hear a chorus of deeply anti-American analysts who, despite their resentment, simply demand that the United States continue to guarantee Europe's military defense without EU member states assuming any significant financial burden. This line of reasoning is neither correct nor admissible. It's a vision that's not only myopic but also intellectually dishonest, ignoring a rapidly evolving geopolitical reality and the growing needs of the US on other fronts. We at Extrema Ratio have been saying this for years.

Credit Extrema Ratio

The New US Strategic Reality: The Center of Gravity Is Shifting

As emphasized by defense experts like Elbridge Colby, currently the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy of the United States and co-founder of the Marathon Initiative, the primary threat to US global military power today comes from the Indo-Pacific, not Europe. The United States finds itself having to manage a "two-front" situation simultaneously: the Russian front in Europe and, above all, the Chinese front in the Indo-Pacific.

Colby and other analysts highlight how the Biden administration, in its 2022 National Defense Strategy, acknowledged that the United States doesn't have the capacity to fight a high-intensity war with China and another significant conflict, such as in Europe against Russia or in the Middle East, simultaneously. The scarcity of American military resources is evident not so much in the overall number of soldiers or total expenditures, but rather in the critical platforms, weapons, and enablers that are the main sources of advantage in modern warfare: heavy bombers, attack submarines, air transport, logistics, and precision munitions.

In this scenario, the idea that the US can continue to defend Europe without an increased contribution from European allies is completely out of place. The call to raise NATO spending to 5% of GDP (and even beyond, as some suggest) isn't a whim or an unmotivated imposition by a single administration, but reflects a new military approach and a clear strategic necessity shared by a broad spectrum of security experts. The United States has a primary interest in focusing its forces in Asia, and to do so, it needs Europe to assume a more autonomous role in its conventional defense, thereby freeing up US "strategic bandwidth." Demanding unconditional protection while bitterly criticizing the protector is simply unsustainable.

European Responsibility: No More Mockery and Accounting Tricks

This brings us to the second crucial point: the need for European states, including Italy, to demonstrate a concrete and sustainable commitment to increasing defense spending. Stating a desire to reach the 5% GDP target (or higher percentages) without detailed financial plans, adequate control mechanisms, and a sanctioning system for those who fail to meet their commitments, is methodologically incorrect and deeply irresponsible.

Italy, unfortunately, is a glaring example of this discrepancy between declarations and reality. Having never even reached the 2% GDP target for NATO spending, while still demanding American military protection, this attitude feels like a genuine mockery of both allies and citizens. How can one expect to maintain international diplomatic and military credibility if they're unwilling to invest in their own security?

Furthermore, this new commitment must be adequately supervised to ensure it's actually met. It's unacceptable for states to resort to accounting tricks to disguise their non-compliance. Transparency and stringent monitoring are needed to ensure that promised investments translate into real capabilities.

For Europe to contribute to better managing America's critical "two-fronts"—by taking on some of the burden of conventional deterrence in Europe while also making a small but strategically significant contribution to deterrence in the Indo-Pacific—a radical change in how Europe invests in military skills, capabilities, and technologies is essential. This requires much closer defense planning and industrial cooperation between NATO and the EU, focusing on investments tailored to concrete operational needs.

In essence, collective defense can no longer be a unilateral commitment. It's time for European allies to move beyond words and (often ideological) critiques, towards concrete and sustainable plans for their own security, acknowledging the reality of a world where threats are multifaceted and American resources are not infinite. To think otherwise isn't realism, but pure illusion.