The NATO summit in The Hague could mark the end of the European Union. The President of the United States has announced that he may no longer be responsible for the EU’s security. If this were the case, there would be an urgent need to reorganize the stability of the European continent. Washington already has its solution: replacing the current German-based structure with a structure centered around Poland.
On June 24, the Netherlands will host the NATO Heads of State and Government Summit. This could be a watershed moment for the organization: upon taking office, US President Donald Trump warned his allies that if each member state did not devote at least 5% of its annual GDP to defense, the Pentagon would relinquish its role as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). Five months ago, however, most were not devoting even 2.5% of their GDP to defense.
Clearly, it is impossible for member states to increase their defense budgets at such a pace. President Trump’s announcement therefore seemed irreversible. The Pentagon was already planning to withdraw its forces from Europe.
The Field: The Quest f...
Best Price: $14.98
Buy New $37.06
(as of 02:36 UTC - Details)
Polish President Andrzej Duda rushed to Washington to meet his American counterpart without an appointment. He managed to see him for a few minutes on February 22, on the sidelines of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He assured him that Poland had begun restructuring its armed forces several years ago; that it aimed to have the largest army in Western and Central Europe; and that it could not move any faster. A conciliatory Donald Trump granted him a reprieve: US troops would be the last to leave Poland.
In Paris and London, meetings were held between defense ministers and chiefs of staff. There was talk of a possible replacement of the United States’ nuclear umbrella with those of France and the United Kingdom. However, this proposal encountered numerous obstacles: first, the United Kingdom did not really possess the atomic bomb, since its facilities depended on its big brother, the United States. Second, the atomic bomb could only depend on one political power. Consequently, states that placed themselves under the protection of another must trust it.
Ultimately, all these discussions came to a halt when Washington suspended all information exchanges for five days. Everyone immediately and cruelly felt that without the power of the United States, their armies were worthless. On the Ukrainian battlefield, the European Union’s weapons were no longer functioning. Defeat was imminent. Within days, the myth of an independent European Union defense system was dead. Everyone made amends.
This excitement, these back-to-back summits, are a hallmark of the negotiations led by Donald Trump. He pushes his interlocutors, lets them consider solutions, brutally shows them that they cannot function without him, and ultimately imposes his solution on them.
In early June, the United Kingdom published its Strategic Defence Review 2025. It’s an ode to protecting the United States. In true British style, the Defense Secretary added to this document the announcement of the purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II bombers capable of carrying and firing atomic bombs. While this still doesn’t quite add up to 5% of GDP in military spending, these represent lucrative contracts that London could sign in exchange for protecting the United States.
More in line with Donald Trump’s demands, the “Bucharest Nine” (the Baltic countries, the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria) and the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) met in Vilnius last week. These fourteen states all committed to spending 5% of their GDP on defense by 2025. They therefore met the challenge, sometimes cheating a little, by including police spending under the same heading.
This leaves 17 member states (excluding the United States) that will not meet Donald Trump’s demands at the Hague summit. How will the United States react? President Trump may consider that he will cease to fulfill his protective duties for these 17 states (including the three largest: Germany, France, and the United Kingdom). He may also consider that, since a minority of NATO members have already fulfilled their commitments, he is granting a reprieve to the others.
This is the thrust of the proposal by Mark Rutte, Secretary-General of the Organization. At the meeting of Defense Ministers on June 5, he stated that an overall 5% investment plan could be broken down into a 3.5% component for capability objectives, plus a second 1.5% component for investments, provided that member states commit to annual plans that allow verification that they are meeting their commitments.
This solution seemed to suit Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense, who commented: “We believe that a consensus is close, if not close to a consensus, on a 5% commitment for NATO in The Hague, no later than this month.” He also announced that the next SACEUR would be Belarusian-born General Alexus Grynkewich.
However, Spain still refuses to meet the 5% target. Its Defense Minister, Margarita Robles, publicly rejected it on May 20.
Let’s consider the first possible answer, the one that changes the game. The Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU’s security is guaranteed, not by its members, but by NATO. The European Union would instantly become a naked economic giant.
EU experts do not believe Donald Trump will take this step. They argue that, in any case, other NATO members will be able to argue that the 5% requirement was never adopted by a NATO summit (the 2014 summit only called for 3%, not 5%). Trump would not dare impose a rule he defined purely verbally, not because NATO is complying with international law, but because the United States would be more credible if it deployed to the Far East, leaving behind a stable situation in Europe.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented her vision for the future of the EU at the Charlemagne Prize ceremony in Aachen on May 29. She believes the European Union must complete the integration of all Balkan and Eastern European countries (except Russia and Belarus), become a major economic power, and ensure its own security. The problem: why would member states stay if the United States is no longer there to protect them? The Empress did not answer the awkward question.
Let’s return to the hypothesis of withdrawing US protection for the 17 states that do not respect the 5% requirement. Donald Trump makes no secret of the fact that while the EU was formed under a secret clause of the Marshall Plan, it is now part of the “American Empire,” which he rejects. In practice, it only harms the United States (which he considers independent of the “American Empire”). Similarly, Donald Trump makes no secret of his support for the “Three Seas Initiative,” that is, the reorganization of the European continent, no longer around a reunified Germany (and therefore the EU), but around Poland and Lithuania.
The Screwtape Letters
Best Price: $1.82
Buy New $8.79
(as of 01:15 UTC - Details)
This view of things corresponds to history. From the 16th to the 18th century, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland constituted the “Republic of the Two Nations.” This binational state managed to protect its subjects from attacks by the Teutonic Order, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Swedish Empire. However, due to the opposition of a section of the Polish nobility and its alliance with the Tsarist Empire, the Kingdom of the Two Nations was dismantled. However, during the interwar period, General Józef Piłsudski (Polish Head of State, later President of the Council of Ministers) imagined reviving the Republic of the Two Nations. This is the concept of “Intermarium” and now “Three Seas Initiative.” This intergovernmental body comprises thirteen states: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic. Moldova and Ukraine are associate members, but it is clear that Poland would only want northeastern Ukraine, that is, eastern Galicia.
Donald Trump, who participated in the 2017 summit of the “Three Seas Initiative”, also makes no secret of his desire for this organization to succeed the EU.
Unwilling to be left behind, France has reactivated the “Weimar Triangle,” the Germany-France-Poland summit. Furthermore, on May 9, French President Emmanuel Macron signed the Treaty of Nancy with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The aim is to strengthen military cooperation between the two countries, but still within the framework of NATO.
The fact remains that, if the EU were to disappear, many old territorial conflicts would resurface with the EU’s death. Yet, never, from Charlemagne to Adolf Hitler, including Charles V and Napoleon, have Europeans managed to make peace among themselves. Only the Roman Empire and the “American Empire” have preserved them from their squabbles.
