Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin's statement that Europe was not strong enough to withstand a Russian invasion of Ukraine without US support seems surprising to some observers, although it is actually a confirmation of the existing reality.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The Finnish prime minister, whose country is awaiting a decision on whether to join NATO, began her statement by saying that she had to be very frank and that Europe could be in trouble without the US. This is not the end of the problem and has nothing to do with statistical estimates or quantitative comparisons.
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the US has supported Kyiv with about $18.5 billion, in addition to intelligence, information, and political support. This aid exceeds the total support provided to Ukraine by all European countries. By the end of this year, the EU is expected to have provided about 7.2 billion euros in cash assistance since the war began in February.
The EU is still considering a new program of financial assistance to Ukraine after European pledges announced earlier this year appear to have stalled. The dilemma is not only regarding the past, but also for the future, as Ukraine will need about $38 billion next year.
This is a huge amount, half of which the Biden administration is willing to provide, while the EU has not yet agreed to the remaining 3 billion euros of the 9 billion euro aid package Ukraine pledged last May. Europe is also still debating how to formulate an aid plan for Ukraine and how to distribute the funds.
EU members disagree on whether the aid should be in the form of grants or low-interest loans, and what guarantees should be given for those loans. The European dilemma is not limited to the provision of funds, whether in the form of grants or loans, but also involves limiting the ability to provide military assistance to Ukraine.
Reports confirm a reduction in weapons stockpiles due to the withdrawal of a large number of weapons that were to be delivered to the country.
In Europe, there is an urgent need to rebuild defense capabilities and develop industries related to the sector to meet demand at a time when countries on the continent are suffering from an energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine and the disruption of Russian gas supplies. However, such a dilemma is not the result of the war in Ukraine.
Everyone remembers the heated arguments between former US President Donald Trump and European leaders over the allocation of funds for European defense. In 2020, the US spent about 3.7% of GDP on the defense budget. For the other NATO members, it was only 1.77%.
It is true that after the war in Ukraine there was a kind of European awakening of attention to defense spending. Germany has announced an additional $113 billion for the defense budget. It plans to increase its contribution to the NATO budget to 2% of national income.
The UK will increase its defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this decade. However, it will take some time for these figures to come into effect, let alone be achieved in practice. NATO's dilemma lies primarily in the weak contributions of member states to the alliance's budget, which depends heavily on US support.
The alliance relies on all member states contributing at least 2% of GDP to the budget to increase the military capabilities. This requirement cannot be met because some members are unable to make such contributions and others are not convinced that such a requirement is really necessary.
The outcome of all these debates is reflected in the alliance's positions and policies on various crises and issues, especially on the issue of Ukraine. In the incident with the two Russian missiles that landed in a Polish village last month, everyone could see how dependent NATO is on the US decision.
As soon as Washington announced that the two missiles were not launched by Russia and tried to contain the situation, NATO members abandoned their positions of strong escalation against Russia in the context of this incident and started to agree on one thing: the missile was Ukrainian. This is the stark reality.
But this fact was announced in Europe only after it was accepted in Washington and NATO members understood that the US did not intend to take an escalating stance against Russia because of this incident.
All these indications confirm that the Finnish position, characterized by a high degree of sincerity, only reflects the reality of US influence and role in NATO, which means that the integral link between Washington and its Atlantic allies will remain, at least for the foreseeable future, and that these allies will have difficulty getting rid of, or even curbing, US influence on decision-making in the Atlantic.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
