No. of Recommendations: 4
But that problem is addressed by having tightly integrated EU defense forces (via NATO). Loosening defense coordination makes that problem worse, not better.
Not necessarily. Currently nations like Spain are more or less refusing to re-arm.
The US did provide a very large proportion of the defense "umbrella" over Europe, but it's not entirely accurate to call that "free riding" - because we got some very important things out of it. Primarily, we got to have an outsized voice in European (and indeed global) security decisions, letting us call the shots on a host of matters and have an influential voice on others. And secondarily, we got the Pax Americana - no wars in Europe for a good 80 years or so. Not bad, considering that European wars cost Americans a lot more lives (and treasure) than any foreign attack against us. There's a very good argument that we're vastly better off paying for Europe's continental defense, since it keeps them weak and us strong and in control of the continent.
1. Outsized voice in European security decisions
It's important to break this up into 2 time periods: a) Cold War and b) Post Cold War.
Pre-Cold war, sure. The US - at the cost of rebuilding the entire economy of post WW2 Europe, the construction of several facilities and the stationing of hundreds of thousands of American troops in Europe, the US got to significantly influence European security strategy. Note that Europe's and America's interests were 100% aligned, so it's not like we were making them do anything they didn't want to do.
Post Cold War. A few US Presidents noted the decline in Europe's defense posture, defense spending, and overall reduction in capabilities. Germany/France/UK all saw their military capabilities and deployable forces shrink to a FRACTION of their Cold War levels. Rather than treating Russia as a rival or strategy adversary, Europe began tethering its energy needs to Russia going so far as to put Putin in a position of being able to dictate energy terms to the continental powers. Instead of being able to handle what amounted to a relatively small peacekeeping operation in the Balkans the USA was forced to commit significant airpower and resources to quell a conflict in Europe's back yard. Rather than pivoting NATO to deter an increasingly aggressive and powerful China, European nations like Italy started to sign on with China's Belt and Road Initiative.
The US kept merrily spending as if the Cold War was still a thing while the Europeans allowed their forces ti wither.
So yes. It's 100% accurate to call it free riding post ~1989.
There's a very good argument that we're vastly better off paying for Europe's continental defense, since it keeps them weak and us strong and in control of the continent.
I think you're underestimating that amount of investment the Euros need to make merely to return to end of Cold War levels.
Key Points and Summary: Germany’s military readiness has long been a weak spot in NATO, with low defense spending and slow procurement cycles. A 2023 report from the Kiel Institute estimates that at current production rates, it would take until 2066 to restore the Luftwaffe’s 2004 combat aircraft levels and until 2121 for artillery.
That's not even back to their Cold War levels. That's just to get them back to 2004.
The Texas Guard by itself could maybe start in Normandy and probably defeat most of Europe by itself.
Most of Europe's militaries aren't merely "weak". They just don't exist anymore.
Quiz for you. How many deployable frigates and destroyers does the Royal Navy have today vs. 1990?
The answer is 51 (1990) vs. 19 today.
