What if the United States abandoned Europe? The hypothesis of an American withdrawal into Asia is at the heart of several of the Dark scenarios of the French army developed in the work of Alexandra Saviana, journalist at L’Express. Particularly in the event of Russian aggression. “It is hardly credible that the Americans will completely withdraw from Europe,” says Philippe Gros, of the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS), “but the possibility exists that, for reasons of internal political divide or orientation – a political paralysis or a very isolationist executive – the United States is in a logic of minimal presence on the continent.
General Jean-Marc Vigilant (2nd section), currently president of the EuroDéfense-France think tank, former director of the War School and former chief of staff of the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, one of the two strategic commanders of the NATO proposes to quickly learn the lessons of delays across the Atlantic, by fundamentally reforming the organization. He wants Europeans to invest more resources and money in NATO. In exchange, they would take military command in place of the Americans, who would remain in the Alliance, in an assistance role that better suits their current priorities. “It takes ten years to build an army. The decisions we make today are therefore those that will protect us in ten years,” warns General Vigilant. Interview around a shocking idea, expected to provoke a reaction in European capitals.
L’Express: Why want to Europeanize NATO and impose a French or a British person at its head?
Jean-Marc Vigilant: This proposal responds to the words of Donald Trump, who threatened to withdraw from NATO if he is elected President of the United States in November 2024. We must seize the opportunity and transform this risk into an opportunity. Europeans have become too accustomed to relying on the protection of the Americans. However, unlike the Europeans who associate NATO with the United States, for the Americans, NATO is first and foremost a European organization, much smaller than their own defense organization. NATO is no longer their priority, so it is time for Europeans to invest more in it, by increasing their own military resources, and taking more responsibilities.
Therefore, it would be logical for the operational military leader to be European, and more precisely from a nuclear-armed state, for reasons of credibility and strategic competence: a Frenchman or a Briton.
Is this proposition only valid if Donald Trump wins the US presidential election in November 2024?
No, because the United States has changed since the Cold War. At the time, we had a common enemy, the Soviet Union. Today, America’s main strategic competitor is China. This does not mean that the United States will not help us in the event of a major conflict in Europe, but it will not be their priority. It is also important to understand that the American general, Supreme Allied Commander for NATO operations, is also the commander of American forces in Europe. This means that it has two leaders: on the one hand, the North Atlantic Council made up of 32 allied nations, and on the other hand the President of the United States. You can imagine what his priority is. You just need to look at your schedule; he spends on average one day a week in Mons, Belgium, at the NATO operations headquarters, and most often he is in Stuttgart, Germany, on the headquarters of the American armies in Europe.
How would this dual membership be a problem for the defense of Europe?
It must be taken into account that in the event of a major confrontation in Europe, the Americans would place the majority of their military forces under their national command. In this case, why not entrust military command of NATO forces to a European? These two organizations would be complementary within a coalition. Without questioning the high quality of American general officers, I think that a European occupying this position full time would be much more involved, because he would be defending his own territory. When President Trump suggested an American withdrawal from NATO, Europeans said to themselves: “Without American military leaders and assets, NATO stops!” If there are European military leaders, NATO will not stop. Just thinking about it is already part of the solution. We must organize ourselves so that NATO works, with or without the Americans and whatever their level of investment.
As it stands, American military assistance in Europe remains automatic under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. In the event of a Russian invasion of a NATO country, in particular.
In the event of aggression by an ally, the North Atlantic Council will discuss the activation of this article 5. Each country is then free to choose the form of its response to assist the attacked country. There is therefore no automatic sending of American troops to Europe.
Europe still believes that it is at the center of global concerns. It’s wrong. The geopolitical map of the world today is centered on the Asia-Pacific. Even if we sometimes have convergences of interests, the United States defends its interests and we must defend ours. I am always appalled to hear some officers from European countries say that we cannot defend ourselves without the United States. If we are attacked, we will have to “face it” and fight together, not wait for someone else to do it for us.
Why not develop a defense around the European Union in this case? This would help keep unreliable allies, like Turkey, at bay.
Today there is no credible alternative to NATO for the collective defense of Europe, because this organization offers the allies a permanent and proven command structure. Additionally, countries only have one set of armed forces, whether for use within NATO or the European Union. If we already have difficulty arming NATO posts, you can imagine that we will have difficulty making a second military organization credible. However, a European military leader in NATO would promote synergies between these two organizations.
What will Poland or the Baltic countries think of this proposal, they who are the most exposed to the Russian threat?
Obviously, their initial reaction will be negative. In general, European countries are afraid that if we raise this subject, the Americans will disengage. But independently of NATO, the latter will not withdraw their troops from the European continent. If the Europeans increase their investments in defense and their responsibilities in NATO, the Americans can only be satisfied. They no longer wish to finance our protection alone. In the American ideal, they would take care of security in Asia, while we would do the same on the European continent. For reasons of sovereignty, the current situation is no longer desirable: why should we remain dependent on the decision of American voters for our own defense? We Europeans must take our responsibilities.
This reform can only be envisaged with a significant increase in the defense budget in France, to the detriment of other public policies. Are you aware of the risk of social conflagration that such a choice would imply?
The defense budget in the United States is 3.5% of their GDP. We are barely at 2% and, despite notable efforts, we know that it is not enough. To be able to absorb this necessary effort more easily, we obviously need to strengthen our economy. With the uninhibited return of violence in international relations and the balance of power between powers, weakness is provocative for a potential adversary.
Do you really think that there is an imminent risk of war on European territory?
The war is already in Europe. The risk of it extending into NATO territory may be low, but it is not zero, and if that happened the impact would be considerable. We must therefore prepare seriously, because showing that we are ready and determined to defend ourselves is the best way to prevent war.
.