Can Europe Relinquish US Strategic Role?

With the Russian intervention in Ukraine, the world became in a new era and it entered into wide geopolitics changes in Europe, in aims of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the world's system.

The world would be in an era when China seizes Taiwan and southeast Asia.

Three blocs- American, Russian, and Chinese may emerge but international chaos and conflicts may prevail as every region of the world will adapt precariously to the new composition of the force.

Recently, Sweden has decided, as expected, to follow in the footsteps of Finland and announce its desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a historic change for these two Scandinavian countries that never joined NATO even in the period of the Cold War.

The two countries changed their neutral position after the repercussions of the Ukrainian crisis.

But the two countries' efforts collide with the Turkish president's refusal, which raises doubts about the possibility of reaching a consensus without difficulty.

Therefore, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which French President Emmanuel Macron considered in 2019 to have entered a "brain death state", is facing a new European challenge; with the request of Finland and Sweden to join this organization.

The central role played by NATO and the American presence in it began to appear.

We no longer hear much about the strategic autonomy of Europe because everyone began to understand the central role of the United States of America (USA) in the Atlantic Alliance.

The French president was explaining, before the Ukrainian crisis, his security strategy, which aims for Europe to be able to maintain its place in a world dominated by giants such as the USA   and China, and he explained at length.

He highlighted the cultural and geopolitical differences between the two sides on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and made clear in his media appearances that Europe should  seek  to prove its strategic importance 'for itself' and 'address the Sino-American double monopoly'.

For several years the French president has been repeating his words that a stronger France can only be achieved through a stronger Europe, something that for decades has been part of France's political genetics.

The Élysée's position towards NATO, for example, has been contradictory since the time of former French President Charles de Gaulle, who withdrew French forces from the alliance's command in 1966, a decision that took its complete opposite only 40 years later.

Today, we no longer hear about this EU strategic military autonomy as the Russian intervention in Ukraine put an end to the illusions of European strategic independence.

The Europeans will not be able to replace America's decisive role as a provider of security and supplier of arms and equipment, without forgetting the intelligence it provides to the allies, as it demonstrated its superiority in this aspect over all European countries combined in the Ukrainian crisis despite its geographical distance and despite the multiplicity of European countries and their proximity to the battlefield.

If we remain in the NATO experience, I do not think that any of the European countries, including Germany which is one of the main actors in Europe, nor the countries of Eastern Europe, will want the demise of this Atlantic alliance or America's exit from it.

The population for which the Alliance contributes to laying a protective umbrella is approximately 900 million people, i.e. the population of its member states, and the number of challenges is constantly evolving.

Those challenges include defending borders, limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, challenging missile attacks, terrorism, piracy, and so on.

We must not forget that in 2008 the total of the military forces that were deployed directly under the umbrella of NATO was 168  thousand soldiers and the number decreased to 16 thousand, because the strength of any alliance is not as strong as the number of its deployed armies, but rather with the strength of the alliance of its countries, and the strength and quality of the weapons used and its strategic and intelligence experience organizational and intrusive.

We are no longer in the old wars, where the enemy's strength is calculated by the number of horses, but by the strength and accuracy of the weapon used.

This strategy to reduce the number of armies and increase the power of intervention and the accuracy of planning was given to the second official in the alliance, the Supreme Commander in charge of Change (SACT), whose headquarters is not located in Brussels, but rather in Norfolk, USA. This reference shows us that the European military alliance cannot be upright without America and that the idea of European strategic independence is part of a recurring delusion.

Translated by Ahmed Moamar