Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended his first NATO foreign ministers’ meeting and appeared more focused on European sensibilities than on American interests. Unfortunately, Rubio embraced the past rather than advocating for progressive change. The continuation of the MAGA revolution could lead to a status quo that is less than desirable.
Rubio sought to reassure European officials who, feeling uneasy under the leadership of both Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, are increasingly taking charge of their own defense. Rather than amplifying European fears that the Trump administration was intent on weakening the alliance, he insisted, “The United States is as active in NATO as it has ever been.” While speaking next to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Rubio argued that “some of this hysteria and hyperbole that I see in the global media and some domestic media in the United States about NATO is unwarranted.”
Interestingly, Rubio suggested a narrative that presents Trump as a supporter of the alliance. “We want NATO to be stronger, we want NATO to be more visible,” he claimed, adding that the improvement of NATO’s visibility and strength depended on member nations increasing their military capabilities. This characterization of Trump contrasts sharply with the perception many hold of him, but the new U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that “under President Trump’s leadership, NATO will be stronger and more effective than ever before.”
In essence, according to aides of the president, the U.S. intends to remain committed to the defense of Europe. Rubio emphasized, “President Trump has made clear he supports NATO. We’re going to remain in NATO.” However, the secretary explained that his main concern is the capability of member nations to meet their defense obligations. This message mirrors what Joe Biden, both as vice president and president, conveyed during his tenure, consistently urging European nations to invest more in their own security.
In stark contrast, Trump previously hinted to aides about his desire to withdraw from NATO during his first term. Although he refrained from pursuing this agenda at the beginning of his presidency, it does not absolve him of his prior intentions. While Rubio continues to echo his boss in advocating for increased contributions from NATO allies, without significant consequences for their inaction, enthusiasm for reform is likely to diminish rapidly. After all, former President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, criticized Europe’s complacency regarding defense spending, but that message was overshadowed by Biden’s light-hearted approach during his visits to Europe.
Rubio faces a challenging task. According to Deutsche Welle, “Rubio’s task of putting fellow NATO members at ease was made even harder on Wednesday when Trump announced tariffs that many fear could kick off global trade war.” A 10 percent tariff now applies to nearly all goods imported into the U.S., with a 20 percent fee imposed on goods from the European Union, affecting 23 of the 31 NATO member states. The deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and European nations is paralleled to a failed romance, with Uncle Sam displaying a distinct lack of respect for his partner. One unnamed European diplomat expressed concerns, stating, “We need to preempt a rapid retreat, but we’ve had nothing precise from the U.S. yet.”
Rubio’s assurances seem to overlook a critical aspect—convincing European nations to do more to relieve America of its defense responsibilities. He departed the meeting expressing a desire for commitments from allies to increase military expenditures to five percent of GDP. Unfortunately, few countries, aside from Poland, are poised to achieve this target, and even fewer likely will, except possibly the small but vulnerable Baltic states. Fear of Russia diminishes significantly as one moves west across the continent, rendering a substantial military build-up less necessary for many nations.
To incentivize cooperation, Rubio noted that the five percent spending goal included the United States. But in stark contrast to Europe, the U.S. has no imperative to inflate its military budget to such heights. The United States stands as the most secure great power in history. With expansive oceans flanking its coasts and peaceful neighbors to the north and south, Americans face minimal threats on land and limited dangers at sea and in the air. Only foreign missile strikes truly pose a significant risk, and the U.S. retains the capacity for devastating retaliation. Consequently, America could maintain its security at a fraction of its current military expenditure.
Currently, a significant portion of America’s defense spending is allocated toward offensive operations. This includes futile endeavors such as invading Iraq, attempting to cultivate a modern democracy in Afghanistan, and combating Yemen’s Ansar Allah to maintain free maritime routes for Europe and China. An even larger portion of these financial resources goes toward safeguarding prosperous and populous allies—ranging from Europe to South Korea, Japan, and others. One may rightly wonder what the Pentagon would do with several hundreds of billions of dollars more. If these countries spent according to their own capabilities and needs, Washington would hardly need to continue to shelter them as defense dependents. What new conflicts does Rubio envision? The time has come for the U.S. to embrace a more peaceful posture.
The current state of European defense relations is particularly absurd. Approximately 600 million Europeans are relying on 347 million Americans to shield them from a mere 144 million Russians. European Union nations, excluding the United Kingdom, possess roughly ten times the GDP of Russia. Yet in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian military expenditures have outpaced those of Europe. This discrepancy results from Moscow’s engagement in an ongoing conflict, but when it comes to military preparedness, determination often matches capability, a quality many European governments still seem to lack. European nations could contribute significantly more but continue to depend on Washington to compensate for their military shortcomings.
There should no longer be any necessity for U.S. involvement in European defense. The transatlantic alliance was a construct of the Cold War, established to provide a shield behind which war-ravaged Europe could rebuild. Even Dwight Eisenhower anticipated that American military presence would not be indefinite. For true security, European nations might need to contemplate the development of nuclear capabilities. Though potentially contentious, having continental nuclear power or the involvement of additional European nations in nuclear armament would prove more favorable than the U.S. extending a
image source from：https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-united-states-can-and-should-reduce-its-defense-spending/
