President Trump outraged European opinion by denouncing his allies on the far side of the Atlantic for their failure to meet NATO’s spending target of 2% of GDP.
Other alliance members, he added, should spend 4% of their output on defense, just like America does. His dudgeon at the Europeans was more than justified: the Europeans really are deadbeats who don’t pay their fair share of the cost of defending their own countries and leave the burden in the hands of American soldiers and taxpayers.
Trump’s remonstrations will fall on deaf ears. Why should Europeans spend money on arms, when they have no intention of using them?
A recent opinion poll found that small minorities in the core European members of NATO were willing to fight for their country under any circumstances.
At the bottom of the rankings were the Netherlands and Germany, at 16% and 18% respectively; at the top was Poland, with 48%. Outside of European NATO, 56% of Russians, 66% of Israelis, 44% of Americans and 74% of Finns said they were willing to fight. The Israeli number reflects the diffidence of Israeli Arabs, who comprise about one fifth of the population. One wonders what would happen if Finland were to invade the Netherlands.
If you don’t plan to fight, you don’t need weapons, and it is no surprise that Germany, with its budget surplus, can’t bring itself to vote for urgently-need funds for its military. Germany’s armed forces are in disrepair; a German brigade designated to lead a NATO rapid response force has only nine of the 44 tanks it requires and only four of the country’s military aircraft are combat ready.
If there’s nothing you’re willing to die for, there’s probably nothing you’re willing to live for, either, I argued in a 2014 essay on the hundredth anniversary of the First World War (see “Musil and Meta-Musil”). It should be no surprise that there is a reasonably close correspondence between the willingness of the Europeans to fight for their nations and their willingness to have children. If you care so little for your country that you will not defend it, you are likely to be too absorbed in hedonistic distraction to bother with children. Conversely, if there are to be no future generations, who will lay down his life to fight for them?
The chart below compares the total fertility for European countries (and adds Israel for good measure; that’s the lonely dot in the upper-right-hand quadrant). The r2 of regression is about 50%, with significance at the 99.9% confidence level.
Russia is indeed a potential threat to NATO, although the likelihood of a Russian attack on any NATO member is vanishingly small for the interim. The Russians are willing to fight, unlike the Western Europeans. Coincidentally, Russia’s total fertility rate has recovered remarkably and now stands about 1.7 children per female, close to that of the United States – and from the available Pew Survey data, that rate applies to European Russians as well as to Russian Muslims.
Russia remains below replacement fertility – about 2.1 children – and its population continues to decline, but far less quickly than the consensus believed it would only a few years ago. Vladimir Putin runs a nasty regime in which nosy journalists fall out of windows and regime opponents disappear, but Russia nonetheless has succeeded in reviving something of its national spirit where the Europeans have not.
The matter of dying for one’s country always has constituted a paradox in classical liberal thinking, by which I mean the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the English philosophers who argued that governments are formed by individuals who feel insecure in a “state of nature” and cede some of their personal sovereignty to the state in return for protection of life and property.
The idea is preposterous, but sadly influential. If governments are formed by individuals solely to protect their sorry persons and filthy lucre, why would any of these individuals lay down his life to defend the government, allowing those who do not die to benefit as free riders? In Locke’s day, to be sure, the British Army hired starving Irishmen and dispossessed farmers to do its fighting. When Napoleon unleashed the full force of citizen armies upon his European neighbors, classical liberalism had nothing more to say.
Something more than Locke’s notion of a mutual protection society is required if we are to justify the state’s monopoly of violence, its right to imprison or kill criminals at home, and to demand of its young people that they shed blood in its defense. The state must be imbued with a sense of the sacred and must stand surety for the continuity of our lives with those of generations that follow. It must preserve a heritage and a culture that allows our words and deeds to speak to future generations just as those of our ancestors speak to us.
Today’s Europe is something of a Lockean dystopia: It is composed of individuals concerned mainly about their own hedonic enjoyments, who want the government to protect them from want and disease, but have no desire whatever to defend their nations, which are on a slow boat to extinction in any event.
It is refreshing to hear an American president call the Europeans out for the sybarites and deadbeats they are, rather than repeat the old cant about the glories of the Atlantic Alliance and the gallantry of America’s allies.
Meyeux OB I’m not sure OB that Russia wants to re-create the Communist Empire (well of course some would like, but …most not). No, Russia has lost Middle Europe, then the Balts, the Central Asians and is now in the process of losing the Ukrainians. There is no idealogy (except ‘Mother Russia’ left), and the military is just hard fighting men with carp technology.
However, I totally agree with you about the Berlin Wall and Euro’s being grateful.
As Bismarck said ‘the founding of N America was the last great achievent of the Europeans’, and as a German mate once said ‘the founding, or saving, of Europe 3x in the 20thC is the last great achievement of the Americans’.
Yuval Brandstetter, ungrateful Germans. But for Reagan and America superior military power, Berlin wall would still be a divider. I think the world is going ad hominem with Trump. Europe is the frontline for any russia military expedition.Wait till Russia grow in military power and in ideology.
Tero Kanne If the only way we in the "banana republic" can keep our quality of lives high is through war and conquest, then so be it. It’s called Hobbes Law. I’d rather a million foreigners die than live a lower quality of life because they lived. Screw them, and screw you. If you needed a hellfire shot down on you to keep petrol in America cheap, then so be it, your life can be forfeit as well. You’re nothing but another subhuman foreigner.
Osmâñ Sîddïq ?? and in English
Of course China will be so much better as a friend of Pakistain, lets just ask the Uighurs
Troy Savage Don’t mistake the loud mouth Left wing and the elites for the common sense of the masses.
Ask your soldiers if the Euros they fight side by side with are dinkum. Having said that lets pull out all our young man and let them fight for their own freedoms
The Russians and the Chinese would like nothing more than to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, and weaken the world’s most powerful alliance which has kept the peace for decades. The U.S. and Europe may have their differences, but the core values remain, and these vastly outweigh the differences.
Ivor Large The Pakistan is thousand times better for country only 70 years old and that actually have to deal with India,defeat USSR(super power) and defend against taliban and USA.
You are talking yourself fool for a country that was defeated in Korea,Vitenam,Syria,Iraq,Libya and Afghanistan.You are idiot from country that was defeated in every war after ww2 even with NATO to back it up.(Cold war was not actual war and multiple countries participated in it)
If the military might and arms mean anything like you behave "You could have won every war after ww2" but look at yourself those un-educated people that learned to fire rocket by looking at the NATO troops do it beat the shit out of you.
nobody in the whole world give a damn shit about the US and I was under consideraton North Korea made it clear but No
NOW he is Atomic Power and He have missiles that can reach US and only thing Trump did was to bend the knee in front of him and surrender.
Tero Kanne Adolf was defeated by the US. Communism was defeated by Reagan outspending them (Gorbie realised the game was up).
EU’s refugee crisis ? Well there aren’t any in the Visehrad Gp who also joined in those wars (? – Saddam & Gaddafi were as nasty as Adolf). No, they’re mostly chancers who only want to go to countries where they dont have to work and can claim benefits.
Blame your Left wing for encouragng them.
Same in Aus, where they passed through numberous countries. As soon as they knew they would be detained ad infinitum offshore, the ‘push factor’, as the left called it, mysteriously stopped. No, it was the ‘pull factor’ of benefits.
However, I do agree with you, time to stop interfering in other countries, let them sink or swim, close the borders. Only accept women & children (ie not 6ft with beards) as refugees
Troy Savage well then you can cut your military spending to 2% just for America
We should start dismantling our installations (ie. bases) in those countries that refuse to pay their fair share! Why should we defend a foreign invasion, if the host country refuses to defend itself!
Ivor Large Dude are you drunk or just an idiot? The thread is discussing European countries. Nothing to do with Asia.
Since it’s inception only once has Article 5 been invoked and that was on behalf of the US. Our allies have been on the battlefields with us and shed blood with us. Calling them deadbeats is ignorant. Should they bring up their militay spending to 2% as agreed? Yeah. 4%? Nobody spends 4% of GDP. Not even the US. Should POTUS push for them to spend more? Sure past POTUS have. It would be nice if he didn’t spout out bullshit numbers (US pays for 90% of NATO) while doing it.
John Bibb Yeah and now we europeans are getting flooded by middle-eastern savages thanks to the US wrecking their homelands and installing puppet leaders here through election meddling who want to keep open borders for them. You ruined Europe, you thrash.
Christopher Alexander "Here, read this propaganda from a military alliance that has only waged offensive wars."
Troy Savage Nuclear weapons are the reasons for world peace, not your warmongering banana republic, ameritard.
Michael Murphree It’s called securing your border regions from encroaching "Union of Peace" NATO whose members sure like bombing countries that refuse to bow down to them. During 19th century russians allowed Napoleon the chance to invade Russia, during 20th century russians allowed Hitler the chance to invade Russia AGAIN FROM THE WEST SURPRISE SURPRISE. Now you can see they’re done being blind to west’s warmongering throughout history. They’re not gonna wait for NATO with the bloodthirsty US military-industrial complex at their backs to encircle their country with satellite states and repeat history that has already happened TWICE by the gallant west.
Syed,
That is a really interesting point about why military age males won’t fight. Hadn’t considered it that way.
You seem really confused. The US built an alliance to help western Europe. It is called "NATO." You should read about it, considering that the article focuses on it. But I suppose English is a sescond language for you?
You won’t fight at all. Don’t kid yourself. Remeber Bosnia? You soft Euros let a genocide begin and only did anything after the US got involved.
Who Is the Idiot who wrote this article???