Waving the fear of Russian invasion, at the summit of the Atlantic Alliance in Ankara, Washington and some European states are calling for more military spending. Behind it, more than one suspicion on the commercial and employment factor of the USA. Meanwhile, a general from the Pentagon dampens the tension.
There is once again talk of Ukraine’s entry into NATO as necessary to protect Europe from Russia. But we still tend to underestimate the political conditions which, according to Article Ten of the Atlantic Alliance, are decisive for joining it. First of all, the candidate nation must have a democratic regime based on a market economy, demonstrate respect for human rights, apply the rules of every rule of law and above all demonstrate fair treatment of minorities. And without going any further we understand how Ukraine is still a long way from such a situation. Not to mention “peaceful conflict resolution and a commitment to resolving territorial or ethnic disputes through peaceful means.” In other words, without first democratic elections and peace with Moscow there would be no way for Kiev to join NATO. But the operation is certainly attractive to several states, especially the USA and France, large arms exporters, who coincidentally at the Ankara summit are pushing more than the others for an increase in military spending. Washington claims that European allies are not yet spending what is needed for their defense, without even hiding the fact that in their opinion they should purchase more US-built weapons systems. As, after all, countries such as Poland, Germany and the Baltics have done in recent years, i.e. all those that have reached values close to 5% of GDP in contracts. And the occasion was useful to give a reprimand to those judged to be behind on the increase in military spending and to those who tend to want to use European funds (EDF) and those available from the Safe program first to update their Armed Forces. For months, in fact, Washington has taken a negative position on the European desire to purchase products made in the Union and not in the USA, going so far as to threaten retaliation. If we then listen to Secretary Mark Rutte, in his uncomfortable position as an “employee” of a NATO in which the largest shareholder is Trump, he could only praise Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Germany for having reached almost 3.5% of GDP in military spending, the new industrial arms race and always the great support for Ukraine. What is worrying, however, is his belief that Russia will remain a serious threat even after the end of the (profitable for Berlin) war with Ukraine. It is no coincidence that Rutte, who sometimes speaks too much and out of turn, never explains the strategic reasons for his conviction. Indeed, it supports those who want to maintain constant pressure on Moscow. Even after Putin sent extensive reassurances to the exact opposite. Interesting, on this level, is what was declared by US General Alexus Grinkevich, head of the Allied Forces in Europe, who three weeks ago, in an interview with the Financial Times, reiterated that there was no indication of a threat that Moscow is preparing to attack Europe. There is therefore more than one suspicion that all this fanfare about the danger of an invasion serves all the actors involved, in reality to materialize the Defense programs already financed to modernize the armies, to return to having a deterrent, before “peace breaks out”. Avoiding the danger of governments taking away financial resources. A dilemma remains: should we believe General Grinkevich or Rutte? Meanwhile, in Ankara the US is asking the Europeans to keep their commitments but buy weapons made in the States. But faced with the fact that Russia alone spends half of what the nations of the Union spend, giving credit to Secretary Rutte becomes difficult. He himself said: “The arms orders that Europe and Canada are purchasing from the USA are worth three hundred billion dollars and support 195,000 jobs”. So here’s one more reason to believe Grinkevich. If you then consider that even by purchasing American weapons, the deliveries are still very long-term because the US military industry is still in the re-acceleration phase, it all smacks of great mockery: buying from Trump today to be ready for a Russian invasion which, according to Polish generals, should only materialize in 2030? And again, NATO would like to ensure that we Europeans also buy Ukrainian weapons to further finance Kiev’s defense industry, making us spend even more than the 214 billion euros we have invested since 2022.
