By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO members recently agreed to allocate five percent of their GDP to defense, with 3.5 percent dedicated to “hard defense.” Germany has committed to reaching the 3.5 percent spending target by 2029, necessitating significant constitutional reforms to facilitate borrowing. Chancellor Merz has engaged with Donald Trump multiple times, noting their weekly coordination regarding the war in Ukraine, but acknowledging Trump’s perceived indifference to European concerns. Merz emphasized the need for increased defense spending due to Germany’s military shortcomings.
Read the original article here
Germany’s Merz admits Europe has been a ‘free-rider’ on US defense, and frankly, it’s a statement that hits a nerve, sparking a lot of conversation. The core of the matter is straightforward: for decades, a significant portion of Europe has relied on the United States for its defense. While this has been a long-standing arrangement, its implications are now being re-evaluated, particularly in light of evolving global dynamics and a renewed sense of urgency regarding European security.
The context behind this statement is complex. Some argue that Merz’s admission is, at least in part, driven by economic motivations. The German car industry, a cornerstone of the nation’s economy, is facing challenges. The idea of pivoting towards the arms industry as a new economic engine is a tempting prospect, making the shift towards increased defense spending seem more appealing. Plus, a strong Germany benefits all of Europe. It’s becoming clear that Europe needs to stand on its own feet militarily, and that Germany is now playing a more prominent role. However, the implication that the US was “free” is not completely accurate. The US has always benefitted from its military presence.
It’s crucial to consider the historical context of this “free-rider” dynamic. After World War II, the United States essentially discouraged Europe from re-arming. There was a widespread desire to avoid another devastating internal European conflict. The US, as a dominant power, provided security guarantees and infrastructure, which helped shape European societies in a way that favored investment in social programs rather than military spending. However, the US was not just acting altruistically. Its military presence granted immense influence, strategic locations, and a built-in market for US-made weapons.
This arrangement worked well for a long time, but the world has changed. The collapse of the Soviet Union, followed by Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine, has shifted the security landscape dramatically. European countries, accustomed to relatively low defense spending, are now facing a new reality. A renewed sense of threat, coupled with a growing understanding of the need for self-reliance, is prompting a surge in military spending across the continent. It’s not that Europe was necessarily wrong for its past choices; it’s just that the world has moved on.
The argument is not necessarily a reflection of an overall European situation. Countries like France and, to a degree, the UK, have maintained robust military capabilities, including nuclear weapons. It is worth noting that some of the Baltic States have long been pulling their weight in terms of military investment.
However, it’s also important to acknowledge the flip side of this argument. The United States, in providing security, has also wielded considerable soft power. The US has often been the primary supplier of weapons to Europe, creating a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo. The implication of the US as a “free ride” is not one-sided. The US gained major influence in Europe, and a lucrative market for its weapons.
The change has been primarily driven by the actions of the United States. The US did not want Europe to spend more on defense. The US viewed an armed and militarized Europe as a threat to national security. The US has also shifted its foreign policy in a way that has eroded trust. As a result, the US role as a security guarantor in Europe is ending. Some see the current situation as a tactical maneuver, designed to appease figures like Donald Trump in order to safeguard NATO and foster cooperation.
The economic factors are also crucial. The collapse of the Soviet Union led many European nations to slash their military spending. The fact that the US had the upper hand in the defense market also contributed to the US position of power.
However, the assertion that Europe is a single entity on this issue ignores the nuances. There are varied interests and levels of commitment among European nations. Some countries feel particularly threatened and have long been investing in defense, while others are now scrambling to catch up.
The evolving global environment is creating both opportunity and pressure. While increased defense spending might benefit specific industries, it’s also a necessary response to genuine security threats. The challenge lies in balancing these competing interests and building a strong, self-reliant defense posture that serves European interests. The US’s previous policies made the need for defense seem less important and less necessary, especially for nations with limited financial resources.