Is Europe’s Free Ride Over?
Ending military dependence on America.
A welcome and significant change has come to European politics: an admission that the European Union (EU) has relied too heavily on the US for its military
fee.org
25 Jul 2025 ~~ By Jake Scott
A welcome and significant change has come to European politics:
an admission that the European Union (EU) has relied too heavily on the US for its military defense. Only a few years ago, any suggestion that Europe had not been pulling its weight in defending its own continent, or had outsourced its military might to the US, would have been met with scorn and derision. Yet Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz has now not only acknowledged this reality, but has gone as far as saying the continent has been “free-loading” off the US.
A single power dominating global affairs through military power is hardly unusual. In fact, it’s been the norm in international relations for centuries that regions have dominant powers: in Europe, that role was largely played by France from the 14th to the 19th centuries, and it was only the advent of a globalized empire under the aegis of the British crown that a truly “global” power could emerge.
In the waning years of the 19th century, Britain developed what it called the “two-power standard.” The principle was that the British Royal Navy ought to be as strong, if not as large, as the next two great powers combined—then France and Russia. By the first decade of the 20th century, Germany’s rapid industrialization saw this balance of power shift. The purpose of Britain’s policy was to protect its global (and, therefore, maritime) empire and the source of her geopolitical strength.
Nearly 150 years later, we see a remarkably similar approach taken by the United States, but for somewhat different reasons. For better or for worse, the US does not act in the primarily realist fashion of Britain’s former empire. Rather than using its military power solely in pursuit of national interest, the US has often embraced the role of “world
~Snip~
This is why it’s being viewed as a significant victory for Trump that NATO members have committed to raising their defense spending, not just to 4%,
but now 5% by 2035.
Realistically, can this be met? It is highly doubtful; the 5% commitment
does not come with carte blanche in how that should be apportioned, with 3.5% being spent on “core defense requirements” and the remaining 1.5% on “supporting defense like port infrastructure.” Many European nations are already facing tighter budgets with much less room to maneuver. Meeting these targets would add further strain on national finances.
Currently, Britain only spends 2.3% of our GDP on defense.
The government pledges to increase this to 3% by 2027—but by the time the 2035 deadline rolls around, it’s likely that a different party will be in power. That could result in the current government delaying the remaining 2% increase until after the 2029 election, leaving its successor to foot the bill. It might be bad international diplomacy, but it’s good politics.
Whether spending more money on defense is a good idea or not is, at this stage, irrelevant. Russia’s continued battering of Ukraine means the luxuries of the postwar era can no longer be taken for granted. Given that Britain’s former army chief has
warned that we must prepare for war with Russia, tough decisions lie ahead. The question is whether Britain in particular, and Europe in general, can continue to afford generous domestic programs in the face of looming geopolitical conflict.
Commentary:
The main problem in breaking dependency on the US is the technical gap in aircraft, air defense, and (of course) nukes. The Poles made a wise choice in doing a lot of co-production with SK, which gets them first-rate arms at a discount price and significant tech transfer. But they still need Patriots and THAAD as do the other European states.
Europe for years has been given a free ride by the U.S. in terms of defense. Other than France and Brussels the U.S. has maintained military bases both in the UK, Germany and Poland, not to mention the supply depots situated throughout Europe the Middle East and Japan.
Trump has been and is correct that these countries step up their contributions to NATO and their own self defense.
It makes no sense when the UK, or Germany claim they don't have the personnel or munitions to protect themselves from an attack from Russia for more than two weeks.
Read more:
Europe could need 300,000 more troops and an annual defence spending hike of at least €250 billion in the short term to deter Russian aggression
www.bruegel.org
xxxxxxxxxx
Germany's failing military infrastructure bears a stark warning for Chancellor Scholz, namely that in case of war, the country won't be able to defend itself.
www.trtworld.com
xxxxxxxxxx
UK 'could not cope' if Putin attacked, say military chiefs, who warn that defences have been 'decimated'
theweek.com
is an example of stupid that just can't be fixed. 
