By Matt Underwood The subject of the US sharing the burden of arming Ukraine is complex, to say the least, and it’s sparking a lot of debate, especially considering the EU’s recent comments on the matter. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that there’s a bit of a historical imbalance here, and that’s where a lot of the frustration stems from. For decades, the US has been gently, and sometimes not so gently, nudging its European allies to increase their defense spending. Presidents from Kennedy to Obama have consistently echoed this call, citing the need for a more balanced contribution within NATO and the wider collective security framework.
Now, with a significant conflict unfolding right on Europe’s doorstep, the expectation is that the EU would step up, and in some ways, that is happening. However, the request for the US to “share the burden” feels a bit… rich, considering the US has already been carrying a significant portion of the load, especially when considering the geographical disparity. It’s a little like someone asking you to split the check after you’ve already covered the majority of the bill for years.
The core issue, as I see it, isn’t necessarily about the US *refusing* to contribute. It’s more about the perception of fairness and the history of unequal contributions. The US has provided massive financial and military aid to Ukraine, including critical defensive systems, while simultaneously maintaining a large military presence in Europe and investing heavily in European collective defense. This level of commitment needs to be acknowledged.
But, let’s be clear: the US also benefits from European stability. A secure and prosperous Europe is good for everyone. It creates economic opportunities, enhances global security, and strengthens the transatlantic alliance. And the US is not solely focused on Ukraine. There is a larger commitment to supporting collective defense in Western and Central Europe, and that is a long-standing investment.
The EU, meanwhile, has, in some respects, enjoyed a sort of free ride, in the sense that they’ve often been able to spend less on defense, knowing that the US would step in. This has allowed them to focus on other priorities, like social programs and infrastructure. While those are important, it is a little disheartening.
The criticism aimed at the EU, particularly its reluctance to fully fund Ukraine’s defense, stings. The EU’s position, as expressed by some officials, seems to ignore the massive US contribution and the strategic realities of the conflict. The idea that the US is the sole enabler is just factually incorrect.
There’s a bit of irony, too. The same people who sometimes criticize the US for being a global “war machine” are now seemingly calling on it to play that role in a conflict that is geographically much closer to them. It’s not the American’s problem, per se. It’s the EU’s problem, happening in the EU’s backyard.
The reality is that the EU isn’t a single entity, unlike the United States. The EU consists of several member states, and each has its own economic resources, political priorities, and defense commitments. Reaching a consensus on defense spending across the EU is a complex, slow process. Even so, a lot of EU countries could be contributing more.
The historical context also plays a role. The US has been the dominant military power in the West for a long time, particularly after World War II. This situation has allowed the US to set the strategic course, and to take on the brunt of the financial and human costs of security.
It’s understandable that the US is now looking for a more equitable distribution of responsibilities. There’s a sense that the US is being taken for granted and that European allies should contribute a much higher percentage of their GDP on their own defense and support for Ukraine. The 2% of GDP target for defense spending, which NATO countries have agreed upon, is a good start. There should be a clear plan.
But the US has also made its own mistakes. The US has been very good at promoting its own defense sector. And it has relied on alliances for its own goals. This situation has created a sense of distrust, in part, because the US has been perceived as a less reliable ally, due to inconsistent foreign policies.
Ultimately, the path forward requires a more balanced approach. The EU needs to increase its defense spending. The US needs to avoid being perceived as an unreliable ally. It needs to maintain its strong commitment to NATO and to the collective defense of Europe.
The US is happy to share the burden with our European allies. As Americans, and as a nation that has been begging for Europe to increase contributions for decades, we are ready for that conversation.