America is responsible for more than 70 per cent of all the military expenditure of the 28 Nato countries. This is grossly inequitable, since the combined Gross National Product (GDP) of the European allies exceeds that of the United States.
It is no exaggeration to say that European leaders are acting like children. They like to patronise America, and were in some cases supercilious or lecturing (step forward Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande) after Trump’s election triumph. Yet they won’t pay to defend their countries properly.
Nato expects every member to contribute at least 2 per cent of its GDP towards defence. Only five countries out of 28 meet this target. The United States stumps up 3.6 per cent of its enormous GDP. Greece pays nearly 2.5 per cent. Tiny Estonia (to which the UK is sending 800 troops and some tanks) spends just over the 2 per cent threshold, while Poland hits its exactly.
As for Britain, although our defence budget was recklessly hacked back by nearly 10 per cent by the Coalition government in 2010 — and the Army reduced to its smallest size since the mid-19th century — we just manage to meet the 2 per cent target.
But that’s it. Germany, which has the fourth largest economy in the world, contributes just 1.2 per cent of its GDP to defence. Italy, whose economy ranks seventh or eighth, stumps up just over 1 per cent. Spain pays less than 1 per cent.
France, which likes to cut a global figure, and is forever despatching troops to Africa to take part in some post-colonial skirmish, pays just 1.8 per cent of its GDP towards defence.
Britain could be absolutely pivotal. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Trump’s election means that Britain will be asked to play an enhanced role within Nato as Europe’s leading military power. This in turn is likely to have a positive effect on our relations with our EU partners, and negotiations over Brexit...
Why Trump's row with Nato will make Britain stronger: President's pledge to cut military support will force EU states to take back control of their own defence, writes STEPHEN GLOVER
By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail
11 November 2016
Are we heading for a war with Russia? I no longer believe it is absurd to contemplate such a nightmare. After all, Vladimir Putin has already seized the Crimea and intervened in Ukraine. He is calling the shots in Syria.
But until now — until the election of Donald Trump — we have had the assurance of American protection. Not any more. Trump does not merely regard Putin with a high degree of respect.
Even more to the point, he also believes America pays too much towards the defence of Europe. During the presidential campaign, he declared that Nato — the Western military alliance which has safeguarded Europeans for nearly 70 years — was ‘obsolete’ and costs America too much.
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech in Moscow
I don’t believe he is right to say Nato is obsolete. With Russia having roughly doubled its military budget over the past decade, and with Putin becoming ever more aggressive, Nato is more relevant than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
But Trump is undoubtedly correct to argue that Europe is too dependent on Uncle Sam for its protection, and that European countries should contribute more to their own defence.
America is responsible for more than 70 per cent of all the military expenditure of the 28 Nato countries. This is grossly inequitable, since the combined Gross National Product (GDP) of the European allies exceeds that of the United States.
It is no exaggeration to say that European leaders are acting like children. They like to patronise America, and were in some cases supercilious or lecturing (step forward Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande) after Trump’s election triumph. Yet they won’t pay to defend their countries properly.
Nato expects every member to contribute at least 2 per cent of its GDP towards defence. Only five countries out of 28 meet this target. The United States stumps up 3.6 per cent of its enormous GDP. Greece pays nearly 2.5 per cent. Tiny Estonia (to which the UK is sending 800 troops and some tanks) spends just over the 2 per cent threshold, while Poland hits its exactly.
As for Britain, although our defence budget was recklessly hacked back by nearly 10 per cent by the Coalition government in 2010 — and the Army reduced to its smallest size since the mid-19th century — we just manage to meet the 2 per cent target.
But that’s it. Germany, which has the fourth largest economy in the world, contributes just 1.2 per cent of its GDP to defence. Italy, whose economy ranks seventh or eighth, stumps up just over 1 per cent. Spain pays less than 1 per cent.
France, which likes to cut a global figure, and is forever despatching troops to Africa to take part in some post-colonial skirmish, pays just 1.8 per cent of its GDP towards defence.
Perhaps even more inexcusably, countries which would be in the front line against Russian aggression, such as Latvia and Lithuania, pay a minuscule amount towards their own defence, and rely on others to protect them.
After years of peace, the leaders of these countries appear to regard the idea of war as a distant possibility. Insofar as there is thought to be a tiny risk, the ever obliging Americans are expected to cover it. This was always a narrow and selfish viewpoint. After Wednesday morning, it is practically suicidal.
For it is surely obvious that if the United States drastically reduces its contribution, which is what Donald Trump has indicated he wants to do, Europe will be unable to defend itself against a Russian invasion unless it significantly increases its defence expenditure.
Indeed, that is exactly the fear raised by a number of British former military chiefs since Trump’s election. For example, Sir Michael Graydon, an ex-head of the RAF, said that Nato without the US would not be strong enough to defend Eastern Europe.
And yesterday, a former Nato chief warned that Mr Trump must act in the face of Russian aggression within 100 days of taking office or it would mark the ‘beginning of the end’ of the US-led system.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary general 2009-2014, said the American president-elect must show ‘strength’
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary general from 2009 until 2014, said the American president-elect must show ‘strength’ towards Moscow since Vladimir Putin ‘only respects a firm and steady hand’.
Of course, we can have no idea what Trump will do once he is installed in the White House and surrounded by American generals who believe in Nato. It seems unlikely, though not impossible, that he will withdraw all US troops and every piece of American military hardware from Europe.
His most extreme statement came earlier this year when he said that the US might not come to the aid of a Nato ally, which it is obliged to do. Under Article 5, an attack on one member is supposed to be treated as an attack on all. If this undertaking is revoked, Nato is finished as an alliance.
More likely, Trump will try to reduce America’s disproportionately large contribution. But that would leave a hole which would endanger the defence of Europe unless it were filled by the European allies.
Here I believe that Britain could be absolutely pivotal. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Trump’s election means that Britain will be asked to play an enhanced role within Nato as Europe’s leading military power. This in turn is likely to have a positive effect on our relations with our EU partners, and negotiations over Brexit.
For the countries which are planning to give the UK a hard time over Brexit are in many cases the same countries which need us to play a leading part in a differently configured Western alliance confronted by a resurgent Russia.
The fact is that, despite successive cutbacks, Britain remains a formidable military power, even though she is dwarfed by America and dangerously outclassed by Putin’s Russia.
Her intelligence capabilities are second only to America’s, and at GCHQ in Cheltenham the UK possesses a surveillance facility which is unparalleled in the rest of Europe, as well as greatly valued by the United States.
Britain’s special forces are considered highly effective, not least in Washington. And as one of Europe’s two nuclear powers (along with France), the UK occupies a special place in Nato, and is taken seriously by Russia. Though depleted, our Army, Navy and the RAF remain forces to be reckoned with.
Trump’s election means that Britain will be asked to play an enhanced role within Nato as Europe’s leading military power. This in turn is likely to have a positive effect on our relations with our EU partners, and negotiations over Brexit.
President Barack Obama shakes hands with President-elect Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington
One of Theresa May’s main tasks will be to capitalise on all the goodwill which Donald Trump plainly feels for this country, and do her utmost to limit American disengagement from Europe.
But there is bound to be a reassessment of America’s role. Why should it continue to subsidise rich European countries capable of looking after themselves? Isn’t it time their leaders faced up to their responsibilities in a grown-up way, and stopped always relying on the superpower across the Atlantic? In this new world, all European countries, not excluding Britain, will have to spend more defending themselves.
We can set aside for now any genuine prospect of an EU army since it is inconceivable that our allies on the Continent will go it alone without Britain. They need us in the most important way imaginable — the defence of Europe.
I’ve lost count of the number of articles I’ve read which suggest that Britain is becoming an introverted little island forsaking Europe.
The opposite is the case. I suggest that a Europe threatened by Russia, and with America in retreat, needs us more than it has done for a long time.
In a strange and so far scarcely understood way, Donald Trump’s election has put Britain back at the heart of Europe — not the sclerotic and undemocratic EU, but the continent of which we are an integral part in an increasingly dangerous world.
It is no exaggeration to say that European leaders are acting like children. They like to patronise America, and were in some cases supercilious or lecturing (step forward Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande) after Trump’s election triumph. Yet they won’t pay to defend their countries properly.
Nato expects every member to contribute at least 2 per cent of its GDP towards defence. Only five countries out of 28 meet this target. The United States stumps up 3.6 per cent of its enormous GDP. Greece pays nearly 2.5 per cent. Tiny Estonia (to which the UK is sending 800 troops and some tanks) spends just over the 2 per cent threshold, while Poland hits its exactly.
As for Britain, although our defence budget was recklessly hacked back by nearly 10 per cent by the Coalition government in 2010 — and the Army reduced to its smallest size since the mid-19th century — we just manage to meet the 2 per cent target.
But that’s it. Germany, which has the fourth largest economy in the world, contributes just 1.2 per cent of its GDP to defence. Italy, whose economy ranks seventh or eighth, stumps up just over 1 per cent. Spain pays less than 1 per cent.
France, which likes to cut a global figure, and is forever despatching troops to Africa to take part in some post-colonial skirmish, pays just 1.8 per cent of its GDP towards defence.
Britain could be absolutely pivotal. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Trump’s election means that Britain will be asked to play an enhanced role within Nato as Europe’s leading military power. This in turn is likely to have a positive effect on our relations with our EU partners, and negotiations over Brexit...
Why Trump's row with Nato will make Britain stronger: President's pledge to cut military support will force EU states to take back control of their own defence, writes STEPHEN GLOVER
By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail
11 November 2016
Are we heading for a war with Russia? I no longer believe it is absurd to contemplate such a nightmare. After all, Vladimir Putin has already seized the Crimea and intervened in Ukraine. He is calling the shots in Syria.
But until now — until the election of Donald Trump — we have had the assurance of American protection. Not any more. Trump does not merely regard Putin with a high degree of respect.
Even more to the point, he also believes America pays too much towards the defence of Europe. During the presidential campaign, he declared that Nato — the Western military alliance which has safeguarded Europeans for nearly 70 years — was ‘obsolete’ and costs America too much.
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech in Moscow
I don’t believe he is right to say Nato is obsolete. With Russia having roughly doubled its military budget over the past decade, and with Putin becoming ever more aggressive, Nato is more relevant than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
But Trump is undoubtedly correct to argue that Europe is too dependent on Uncle Sam for its protection, and that European countries should contribute more to their own defence.
America is responsible for more than 70 per cent of all the military expenditure of the 28 Nato countries. This is grossly inequitable, since the combined Gross National Product (GDP) of the European allies exceeds that of the United States.
It is no exaggeration to say that European leaders are acting like children. They like to patronise America, and were in some cases supercilious or lecturing (step forward Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande) after Trump’s election triumph. Yet they won’t pay to defend their countries properly.
Nato expects every member to contribute at least 2 per cent of its GDP towards defence. Only five countries out of 28 meet this target. The United States stumps up 3.6 per cent of its enormous GDP. Greece pays nearly 2.5 per cent. Tiny Estonia (to which the UK is sending 800 troops and some tanks) spends just over the 2 per cent threshold, while Poland hits its exactly.
As for Britain, although our defence budget was recklessly hacked back by nearly 10 per cent by the Coalition government in 2010 — and the Army reduced to its smallest size since the mid-19th century — we just manage to meet the 2 per cent target.
But that’s it. Germany, which has the fourth largest economy in the world, contributes just 1.2 per cent of its GDP to defence. Italy, whose economy ranks seventh or eighth, stumps up just over 1 per cent. Spain pays less than 1 per cent.
France, which likes to cut a global figure, and is forever despatching troops to Africa to take part in some post-colonial skirmish, pays just 1.8 per cent of its GDP towards defence.
Perhaps even more inexcusably, countries which would be in the front line against Russian aggression, such as Latvia and Lithuania, pay a minuscule amount towards their own defence, and rely on others to protect them.
After years of peace, the leaders of these countries appear to regard the idea of war as a distant possibility. Insofar as there is thought to be a tiny risk, the ever obliging Americans are expected to cover it. This was always a narrow and selfish viewpoint. After Wednesday morning, it is practically suicidal.
For it is surely obvious that if the United States drastically reduces its contribution, which is what Donald Trump has indicated he wants to do, Europe will be unable to defend itself against a Russian invasion unless it significantly increases its defence expenditure.
Indeed, that is exactly the fear raised by a number of British former military chiefs since Trump’s election. For example, Sir Michael Graydon, an ex-head of the RAF, said that Nato without the US would not be strong enough to defend Eastern Europe.
And yesterday, a former Nato chief warned that Mr Trump must act in the face of Russian aggression within 100 days of taking office or it would mark the ‘beginning of the end’ of the US-led system.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary general 2009-2014, said the American president-elect must show ‘strength’
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary general from 2009 until 2014, said the American president-elect must show ‘strength’ towards Moscow since Vladimir Putin ‘only respects a firm and steady hand’.
Of course, we can have no idea what Trump will do once he is installed in the White House and surrounded by American generals who believe in Nato. It seems unlikely, though not impossible, that he will withdraw all US troops and every piece of American military hardware from Europe.
His most extreme statement came earlier this year when he said that the US might not come to the aid of a Nato ally, which it is obliged to do. Under Article 5, an attack on one member is supposed to be treated as an attack on all. If this undertaking is revoked, Nato is finished as an alliance.
More likely, Trump will try to reduce America’s disproportionately large contribution. But that would leave a hole which would endanger the defence of Europe unless it were filled by the European allies.
Here I believe that Britain could be absolutely pivotal. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Trump’s election means that Britain will be asked to play an enhanced role within Nato as Europe’s leading military power. This in turn is likely to have a positive effect on our relations with our EU partners, and negotiations over Brexit.
For the countries which are planning to give the UK a hard time over Brexit are in many cases the same countries which need us to play a leading part in a differently configured Western alliance confronted by a resurgent Russia.
The fact is that, despite successive cutbacks, Britain remains a formidable military power, even though she is dwarfed by America and dangerously outclassed by Putin’s Russia.
Her intelligence capabilities are second only to America’s, and at GCHQ in Cheltenham the UK possesses a surveillance facility which is unparalleled in the rest of Europe, as well as greatly valued by the United States.
Britain’s special forces are considered highly effective, not least in Washington. And as one of Europe’s two nuclear powers (along with France), the UK occupies a special place in Nato, and is taken seriously by Russia. Though depleted, our Army, Navy and the RAF remain forces to be reckoned with.
Trump’s election means that Britain will be asked to play an enhanced role within Nato as Europe’s leading military power. This in turn is likely to have a positive effect on our relations with our EU partners, and negotiations over Brexit.
President Barack Obama shakes hands with President-elect Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington
One of Theresa May’s main tasks will be to capitalise on all the goodwill which Donald Trump plainly feels for this country, and do her utmost to limit American disengagement from Europe.
But there is bound to be a reassessment of America’s role. Why should it continue to subsidise rich European countries capable of looking after themselves? Isn’t it time their leaders faced up to their responsibilities in a grown-up way, and stopped always relying on the superpower across the Atlantic? In this new world, all European countries, not excluding Britain, will have to spend more defending themselves.
We can set aside for now any genuine prospect of an EU army since it is inconceivable that our allies on the Continent will go it alone without Britain. They need us in the most important way imaginable — the defence of Europe.
I’ve lost count of the number of articles I’ve read which suggest that Britain is becoming an introverted little island forsaking Europe.
The opposite is the case. I suggest that a Europe threatened by Russia, and with America in retreat, needs us more than it has done for a long time.
In a strange and so far scarcely understood way, Donald Trump’s election has put Britain back at the heart of Europe — not the sclerotic and undemocratic EU, but the continent of which we are an integral part in an increasingly dangerous world.