Europe and NATO Unable to Help US Confront China, LA Times

Recently, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stood shoulder to shoulder with the NATO Secretary General to unveil an ambitious vision: “The alliance acknowledges that security challenges in one part of the world impact others, and vice versa,” Blinken stated.

At the same time, he echoed Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s remarks, “What is happening in Ukraine today could happen in East Asia tomorrow.” The subtext was unclear; the United States expected Europe to join its campaign against China’s rise just as allies rallied against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, reports the Los Angeles Times.

However, no matter how stirring the declarations of transatlantic solidarity sound, they overshadow a more complex picture. Europe currently has neither the military means nor the political appetite to provide significant assistance to the US in balancing China in Asia, emphasizes author Mark Hanrahan.

“Europe’s largest military forces have started conducting naval patrols in the Indo-Pacific region, but decades of underinvestment have meant that European militaries are far too small and lack the equipment for far-reaching expeditionary missions. Germany, the continent’s economic powerhouse, has allowed half of its tanks to crumble. Great Britain, once a global power, can run out of ammunition within two months of intense fighting. The French Army has been reduced from 15 divisions during the Cold War to only two today,” the article states.

Sending a few frigates to patrol is one thing, Hanrahan said, but maintaining a significant presence to deter Chinese aggression is another. “The strategic lift, logistics, and bases needed to sustain forces in the Pacific will be astronomical costs. Much of NATO Europe would struggle to defend itself from a determined Russian attack, let alone foresee power in Asia… According to recent surveys by the Global Relations Institute of the four richest countries in NATO—US, UK, Germany, and France—Europeans are much less likely to view China as a threat than Americans, have sharply negative views, or think the West should prepare for a new Cold War,” writes the author.

In his view, these sentiments restrict leaders' abilities to lean toward Washington on the China issue, despite their fervent rhetoric at the summit. “After the conclusion of democracy promotion at international summits, these political leaders return to their democratic countries, where their policies will be determined and constrained by voter preferences. If Washington pushes European capitals to join its campaign to curtail Chinese power and influence, it could once again push the US away from its key allies. Positioning China as the adversary of likeminded democratic countries may be emotionally rewarding, but in the long run, it is reckless. Europeans are already weary of their involvement in endless wars since September 11 and are wary of America’s inclination towards military intervention. ‘President Biden must be careful not to entangle them in a larger global competition in which they neither want nor are capable of participating,’” the article concludes.