A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.
President Joe Biden took a welcome break from his domestic crises to journey across the Atlantic to assure our European allies that America still loves them, is back and ready to lead again. He was, of course, warmly received by the leaders of the G7 nations because Biden is so much easier to get along with than his predecessor. No more of that rude “America first” talk and all that. From now on, we’ll listen to our allies and world opinion as expressed in the UN. The United States has rejoined the Paris Climate Accords and is seeking to re-engage with Iran over nuclear weapons, ignoring the concerns of Israel and some Arab allies. He was nice to everyone, including Angela Merkel, walked arm-in-arm with France’s Emmanuel Macron, had tea with Queen Elizabeth, exchanged lots of fist-bumps and everyone seemed to be having fun.
He didn’t lecture or scold the G7 leaders and Macron even welcomed him to “the club”, by which he might have meant the welfare states of Europe, given Biden’s current extravagant $6 trillion spending plans. Mr. Biden had hoped to talk them into taking a tougher stand against an increasingly belligerent China but they were having none of that. Trade with China is far too important to Europe to risk offending Beijing any more than their end-of-conference communique containing gentle criticism of China’s human rights abuses did and heaven forbid they should dwell on the question of how the Covid-19 virus was unleashed on the world from Wuhan. They were much more focused on the threat that Russia posed in their own backyard and, after all, China is so far away.
Biden had declined to impose sanctions on the builders of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, enabling its completion to proceed which will provide Europe with natural gas from Russia. It is a financial boon for Russia’s energy-exporting economy but will increase Europe’s dependence on Russia for energy which suits Moscow well. It’s indeed ironic that Biden killed the completion of the Keystone Pipeline which would have carried Canadian crude to America’s Gulf of Mexico refineries, denying the U.S. with another source of energy and 10,000 jobs, raising gas prices and offending Canada, but ensured adequate energy supplies for Europe which could have been satisfied with U.S. natural gas exports and the existing Ukraine pipeline without benefitting the Russian economy.
Then it was off to Brussels to assure NATO members that the U.S. is committed to NATO and its charter which says an attack on one is an attack on all. Hmm. Some of its members, like the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, formerly part of the Soviet Union, share a border with Russia. One could drive clear across the entire length of Estonia in less than a day which is about the time it would take Russia to overrun the tiny country. How would we respond and with what forces? Just asking.
The wealthy former colonial powers of Europe, once military powers but now welfare states with mostly hollow militaries, still welcome American leadership so long as we do the heavy lifting and can still afford to provide them with a reliable defense umbrella. But don’t ask them to spend more on their own defense because that would have to come at the expense of welfare benefit funds. Only ten NATO members currently devote the 2% of GDP to defense that the NATO charter requires of its members, leaving the U.S. to do the heavy spending as well as the heavy lifting. Defense spending is not fashionable in Europe. Increasingly, it is becoming out of fashion in America as well. Maintaining a robust defense posture is just not compatible with being a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
The main threat to America is China, not Russia. A conflict with China is not inevitable but is a serious risk and the best way to deter that conflict is to build a military deterrent superior to the one they are building and building more rapidly than we are building ours. If there is a conflict, it will be a naval conflict. We have a long way to go, especially in shipbuilding, and the current defense budget won’t even maintain current force levels. This year, our Navy will decommission more ships because of budget constraints and maintenance problems than we will build. Moreover, it’s not at all certain that we have the industrial capacity to catch up with China, whose Navy is already numerically larger than ours. Capability is not just about numbers of course, but numbers do matter and our Navy is stretched thin, especially our carrier forces.
Addressing the growing threat that China poses will require even more focus on the Western Pacific, not Europe. Russia poses a regional threat, mainly to Eastern Europe, and the wealthy nations of Europe need to step up to the plate and take on more of the burden of their defense. Mr. Biden told them that we are stronger when we act together. Perhaps so, but not when one nation must carry most of the burden.
With the fun part of the trip over, Messrs. Biden and Blinken then flew on to Geneva to meet with Vladimir Putin. If you expected Mr. Biden to demand that Russia return Crimea to Ukraine, cease hostilities in Eastern Ukraine and apologize to Georgia for meddling in its civil war, you would be disappointed as well as naïve. There’s as much chance of Russia giving back Crimea as there is of China returning Hong Kong to Britain. Instead they reportedly talked about cooperation on matters of arms control, climate change and human rights, topics which Putin is always happy to talk about. Taking meaningful action is quite another matter.
June 28, 2021
Commentaries by J. F. Kelly, Jr. 