Europe’s reckless bid for victoryIt is defenceless without America

The absurdity of the European position was perhaps best captured in its full hubris last year by the historian and writer Anne Applebaum when she won a prestigious German peace prize. During her acceptance speech, she maintained that victory was more important than peace, asserting that the West’s ultimate goal should be regime change in Russia. “We must help Ukrainians achieve victory, and not only for the sake of Ukraine,” she said. “If there is even a small chance that military defeat could help end this horrific cult of violence in Russia, just as military defeat brought an end to the cult of violence in Germany, we should take it.” This is the Second World War model in its purest form.

But most wars do not fit that pattern, they generally end with complex peace deals. A far better model for the current conflict would be the Thirty Years’ war that raged in central Europe from 1618 until 1648, and which pitched the Holy Roman Empire against the protestant towns and municipalities supported by Sweden and the Netherlands.

That war did not end with glorious victory for any of the involved parties. But it did end with one of the most important peace treaties of all time: the Peace of Westphalia. One of the important principles it established was that of non-interference in other countries’ domestic policies. It laid the foundation of the modern nation state and marked the beginning of a golden age of European politics, art and science.

Russia’s conflict with the West has gone on for almost as long. Vladimir Putin has waged war in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria in an attempt to regain those spheres of influence lost after the breakdown of communism in 1990. And without some sort of peace deal, Putin is certain to keep pressing the Russian advantage, with a strategy that may yet involve the Baltic states and Poland.

It is dangerous for Europe to insist, instead, on victory. For while Trump has talked a lot of nonsense about Zelensky and the war, he is right in one critical aspect. Without America, there is no road to victory for Ukraine. This is not primarily about weapons, ammunition, and financial aid, but about satellite support and intelligence. If the US were to switch off the satellites and stop the flow of information, the Europeans have no way of plugging the gap. Without the US, it’s over for Ukraine.

Not only has Europe failed to grasp this, it has also failed to map out a strategic path to victory. Politicians, journalists and academics parrot meaninglessly, that Europe will do whatever it takes. Or they assert that Putin will blink first, if only the war goes on for a little while longer. Or that the Russian economy will collapse as sanctions take their toll. But solidarity is not a strategy. Virtue signalling is not a strategy. Sanctions are not a strategy if the primary goal is to minimise the pain to ourselves.

A strategy is something that is costed, politically stress-tested, and that responds to different scenarios. A strategy has primary targets, together with an agreed definition of second-best outcomes. A strategy also has a clear exit route mapped out. Europe has nothing.

A credible path for a Ukrainian victory would have started three years ago with a massive expansion of military spending by all European Nato countries. There should have been an immediate expansion of military industrial capacity, which has been depleted in most western countries, and a concerted political campaign to organise trade-offs between other spending priorities and defence.

But Germany, France and the UK, those European countries which matter most, didn’t act back then and now all lack the fiscal headroom to corral such an approach. We have not figured out how we can support Ukraine and stay solvent. The most desperate idea has been to plunder Russia’s $300m in foreign reserves, which are currently frozen. Clearly this hasn’t been thought through. If that were to happen, the risk is that Euroclear, the Brussels-based financial depository where the reserves are held, could face a slew of lawsuits and even bankruptcy. The EU would be forced to spend tens of billions to recapitalise the company — potentially costing more than the aid to Ukraine. The trust in Europe as a safe place for assets would be lost and we could end up with a full-blown financial crisis.

“We have not figured out how we can support Ukraine and stay solvent.”

Without a costed exit strategy now, and as America turns away, how then is the EU to defend itself in the future? Even if the EU were to set itself an agreed trajectory towards military spending of 3% of GDP by 2030, and to pool their procurement to make defence spending more efficient, I struggle to see how the continent can find the unity and determination to replace the US as guarantor for our security. Kaja Kallas, High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, laughably exemplified Europe’s myopic attitude to strategy when she said “the free world needs a new leader”. This is preposterous, typical of European grandstanding. The EU, with its veto rights, its qualified majority voting and the explicit exclusion of defence from the single market, is structurally unsuited for foreign and security policy in a Hobbesian world. We couldn’t be further from a Westphalia moment.

We have been here before. Angela Merkel talked about European strategic independence from the US in 2018, after a disastrous meeting with Trump. But she did not put any political capital behind the idea because she did not want to pay the political price.

A structural increase in defence spending would require sacrifice. The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defence. In 2023, the 27 EU countries spent an average of 1.6% of EU GDP. This gap of almost 2 percentage points arises because we Europeans spend the money on other things. Germany has a gold-plated social system. People are entitled to a basic citizens’ income whether they work or not. Germany has also given itself a budget of €150bn for the energy transition. The US, meanwhile, has food stamps, and no net zero policy. You cannot do it all. There are necessary trade-offs involved which the Europeans have not even begun to discuss.

In their desperation, though, the Europeans are now talking about funding an increase in defence spending through debt. This is economically insane. For that reason, it will also fail to achieve its declared goal — to deter an enemy attack. The credibility of our security policies depends on a willingness to finance them. Defence spending should be funded through current revenue. If you do try to do this through debt, the bond vigilantes are going to get you before Putin does.

Putin must surely see that Europe is desperate. The UK only managed to increase its 2027 military spending target from 2.3% to 2.5% by cutting its foreign aid budget. Meanwhile, France’s divided politics has left the country on an unsustainable fiscal path, even as the Germans are grappling with their own fiscal rules. This molly-coddled, self-absorbed Europe is not about to fight and win a war against Russia. We applaud speeches calling for regime change in Moscow. But we want someone else to do it for us just like in the Second World War. The difference is that back then, America was willing to play a progressively stronger part. This time, the US is in open retreat.

If the Europeans were smart, they would take Zelensky to one side, without the cameras, and tell him that the game is up, and that he should cut a deal with Trump now. They should insist that what the President was trying to negotiate before the Oval Office showdown is as good as anything Ukraine will ever get — the minerals deal will keep the US engaged in the besieged nation’s future. For now, though, it seems clear that Europe and Ukraine are currently asking for more than Trump is willing to concede, especially since the White House is convinced that they aren’t ready for peace.

Seeking victory, Zelensky walked straight into a trap in the White House last week. He may have been more at ease with his European friends in London who cajoled him with warm words and big promises. But their shared illusion that there is a path to victory will inevitably lead to a more dangerous future for us all.

Wolfgang Münchau is the Director of Eurointelligence and an UnHerd columnist.