“Putin respects strength and exploits weakness”

AURELIUSZ M. PĘDZIWOL: Let’s start from Europe’s situation following the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the context of the results of the presidential elections in the United States of America. Will Europe be left alone after Trump’s victory, or could it inactive number on a NATO with the US?

GERLINDE NIEHUS: I think that the dominating origin after Trump takes office will be unpredictability, as it is hard to say what he will do. The political programme he presented during the campaign, and in the years prior, is very, very contradictory. It is not cohesive. erstwhile it comes to NATO we might not precisely be reassured if we take erstwhile statements into account. specified as the ones that claim NATO is obsolete …

But that was in his erstwhile term…

Yes, in the first phase of his presidency. There was besides an effort to retreat the US from NATO. He could now return to that way or decision towards a NATO “a la carte”. After all, during his election run he stated that he would support only those countries that invest at least 2 per cent of their GDP in their own defence.

That isn’t besides bad.

It could affect Germany, which could scope the NATO 2 per cent goal through any creative bookkeeping for the first time in 2024. But we can’t be certain it will stay so after 2027. Trump could return to this NATO “a la carte” or to this alleged “dormant NATO” which is being discussed in his circles. This is simply a script where the US withdraws from NATO to a large extent, retaining the atomic umbrella and naval security. Europe would be left to fend for itself in anything else. no of these scenarios are good. Now there have been reports that he wants Allies to decision to 5 per cent of GDP in investing in defence, as the condition for the US to stay engaged in NATO. But even Donald Trump himself most likely doesn’t know what he will do in the end.

The discussion about Europe taking more work for its defence and that the EU should have a military dimension have been taking place independently of Trump.

That’s right. I think it is besides a long-term US strategy. A persisting US orientation is clearly directed towards China and the Indo-Pacific, as it is there the main challenges will appear in coming decades. As a result, the US force on Europe to do more for its own safety won’t diminish. For Europe, this means to rebuild the military capabilities that it has mostly lost during 3 decades of reaping the putative “peace dividend” after the end of the Cold War. Europeans must proceed to ramp up investments in defence, increase defence production, fill immense gaps in areas specified as air and rocket defence, and build combat capable land forces with the capabilities for their deployment – provided for decades mostly by the US.

Does this mean the creation of a Euro-NATO? possibly the rebirth of the Western European Union?

Turning back the clock doesn’t convince me. The Western European Union and the European Defence Community did not work out. I believe it is better to see where we are now and where we will be in the coming decades, and then pivot strategically.

There are 2 crucial issues for me. Firstly, what connects NATO and the EU is much more crucial than what divides them. Taking into consideration the broader strategical perspective, both institutions must stick together as strategical partners. Speaking of a “broader perspective” I mean not only an aggressive Russia, but besides another threats like the cooperation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, known as the “Axis of Upheaval”, or in fact the raising coercion from China. This is most crucial – NATO and the EU must stay united. .

Secondly, another crucial issue is to find a expression for cooperation, 1 that maximises synergies between both organizations and is based on the respective core strengths of each of the institutions. In that perspective, NATO would stay the foundation for our collective defence and the forum for its implementation. That is how it is spelled out in different strategical papers of both the EU and NATO.

Drawing on its strengths, the EU could take a bigger function for example in cybersecurity or resilience and preparedness, which goes beyond the strict military sense, as it covers the civilian sector, preparing the population for conflict.

What are the EU’s advantages in comparison to NATO?

The EU has many crucial instruments. It can play an crucial function in strengthening the European defence manufacture and industrial policy. It can besides play a key function erstwhile it comes to investigation and improvement that it could grow besides in the realm of safety and defence. Most importantly, the EU has a much larger budget than NATO. This is of importance erstwhile it comes to further enhance military mobility and the critical infrastructure needed for its implementation. For example, many roads or railways request to be refurbished so that they can be utilized for deploying troops if needed.

We should besides work towards joint defence planning in Europe: NATO would take the lead in setting the capability targets and the standards and answer the question of what needs to be done. The EU, in turn, could lead on the question of how to do what needs to be done, utilizing its increasing tool kit. It would be a division of labour that would utilize the strengths of each institution in my opinion.

So it is not about a European army, but alternatively about building complementary positions of NATO and the EU?

Yes, it is about boosting synergies. I’m not besides convinced about labels specified as “European army”, as these divert our attention from what we should be doing. all country has just 1 set of armed forces and can decide how and where to usage these, be this under the NATO, EU or in fact UN umbrella. But it will stay the same armed forces. It is more crucial that armed forces are equipped and trained in a manner that they are combat credible and capable. This means there must be defence investments that enable this. We have many gaps and shortages in this area.

What could European countries do if the US withdraws from NATO?

I believe it is simply a hypothetical…

But you have besides described specified a scenario.

In the event that Trump would aim to take the US out of NATO, there is inactive the question if the US legislature would support it. After all, this is simply a decision that the president cannot take by himself.

However, should the Americans truly retreat from the continent, the Europeans would face a dilemma as they presently aren’t able to supply for their own security. Around 67 per cent of NATO’s defence expenditures comes from the US. Until now this has proven indispensable for the defence of Europe.

The Europeans have a very, very long road ahead erstwhile it comes to rebuilding the military capabilities they had during the Cold War and which were dismantled over the last 3 decades. Recovering from this constant atrophy and erosion of military capabilities cannot be achieved within a year or two. We truly request a long-term policy that will stay the course, and political leaders that have the will and abilities to explain all of this to the society. They must be able to sustain the policy and implement it.

This means that Europe would gotta triple its defence spending?

In any event, Europeans must spend much more on defence. We have discussed the American expectations that European countries ought to do more for their own safety and defence not only during the erstwhile word of future president Trump, but besides during the presidency of his predecessors. If you look at it from their position it becomes understandable. What do they see erstwhile they arrive in Europe? Wealthy countries where citizens can afford a advanced standard of surviving and long holidays. The Americans then ask themselves why they should pay for their security? Why won’t the Europeans do more themselves?

One of the leading figures in Europe is the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. Does the fact that she was defence minister in the past hold any significance?

I’m not sure. Her time in office was not without controversy. She besides wasn’t among the alleged Spitzenkandidaten (main candidates) for the office of European Commission president. Back then she was a compromise candidate. But if we look at what she has been doing with regards to Ukraine we gotta admit that the EU has achieved a lot. This includes the sanctions placed on Russia, even if they have quite a few holes and any associate states don’t full uphold them.

Like Hungary?

Yes, among others like Cyprus, Austria or Italy. The EU and von der Leyen have besides done a lot for Ukraine erstwhile it comes to supplying funds for basic services specified as wellness care, education, salaries and pensions. The EU financial support plays an immense role. NATO’s safety umbrella enables associate states to supply specified assistance for Ukraine. The main function of the Alliance was and remains to safeguard the freedom and warrant safety for its members. Vladimir Putin naturally knows about this. This is why a direct military attack against a NATO associate isn’t likely.

The country that supports Ukraine the most present is the US. Will Europe gotta take over this function if this worst-case script came into fruition? Should Ukraine receive a fast-track membership possible to NATO in light of this?

Yes, is the answer to both of these questions. However, there is simply a immense gap between the message and its implementation. Firstly, Europeans gotta invest more in their defence in the long run. This includes the defence industry. Ukraine has shown in many ways that Europe isn’t capable of providing adequate ammunition due to the fact that it has no capacity to produce it. This must now be rebuilt. manufacture representatives want to know if they will have clients erstwhile they set the wheels in motion. After all these are large-scale investments. There is simply a request for long-term commitments so that the manufacture could ramp up production. The Europeans must do this both for basic components like ammunition and more complex weapons systems.

Does this include Ukraine?

This includes Ukraine, yes. Rheinmetall is an example as they have already set up a mill there. I would be happy if another European armament companies followed this lead. Your second question on Ukrainian membership in NATO…

… possibly it can be done according to the German model?

Exactly. present NATO says that Ukraine’s future is in NATO and that the Alliance will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance erstwhile Allies agree and conditions are met. Personally, I believe that this time has arrived. Ukraine should be invited to start accession talks.

This is 1 of the first points of president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “Victory Plan”. I think he is absolutely right. Accession negotiations should begin as they would be a perfect signal for Ukraine that would strengthen its resilience and increase its motivation. It could be an even stronger signal for Putin, that we won’t be intimidated. I regret that we have politicians in many countries that prosecute an “escalation avoidance approach. In my opinion, this is misguided and short-sighted.

Instead, we request a coherent Russia-containment strategy. We shouldn’t keep falling into the same trap. Putin respects strength and exploits weakness. If we hesitate or don’t have the courage to do this or that due to the fact that we fear a possible escalation, it is in fact an invitation for Russia to proceed escalating. This includes defining red lines for our own actions which have hampered our support to Ukraine over past years. Putin fosters fears, procrastination and cowardice, to usage to his advantage wherever he can. We gotta realize that this debate about escalation is actually a policy of appeasement. Concessions are an incentive for any aggressor to proceed and intensify their aggression. They can see that they get distant with it!

We request to depart from this thinking. It is another reason for why we should invitation Ukraine to accession negotiations. After all, Germany was included in NATO as a divided country, with the border to the then GDR being treated as temporary. possibly we in Germany should remember this.

Can you envisage Ukraine as a full associate of NATO before the end of the war? Before the occupied territories in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya, Kherson regions, as well as Crimea, are liberated?

I can. It would nevertheless request further investments in a militarily strong Ukraine and political courage on the part of Ukraine and its partners.

This conversation was held during the Freedom Games in Łódź.

Gerlinde Niehus is an independent safety expert with 25 years of experience from different managerial positions at NATO office in Brussels. Until late she was liable for NATO’s applicable cooperation with partner countries specified as Ukraine, Georgia and in the Western Balkans.

Aureliusz M. Pędziwol is a writer with the Polish section of Deutsche Welle.

Public task financed by the Ministry of abroad Affairs of the Republic of Poland within the grant competition “Public Diplomacy 2024 – 2025 – the European dimension and countering disinformation”.

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the authoritative positions of the Ministry of abroad Affairs of the Republic of Poland.