Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“NATO ally Turkey lifted its veto over Finland and Sweden's bid to join the Western alliance on Tuesday after the three nations agreed to protect each other's security… Turkey's main demands, which came as a surprise to NATO allies in late May, were for the Nordic countries to stop supporting Kurdish militant groups present on their territory, and to lift their bans on some sales of arms to Turkey.” Reuters
“President Joe Biden said Wednesday the U.S. will significantly expand its military presence in Europe… Among the changes will be a permanent U.S. garrison in Poland, for the first time creating an enduring American foothold on the alliance’s eastern flank. Biden also said the U.S. would send two additional squadrons of F-35 fighter jets to the United Kingdom and more air defenses and other capabilities to Germany and Italy.” AP News
Here’s our prior coverage of Sweden and Finland requesting to join NATO. The Flip Side
Many on both sides urge Europe to take more responsibility for its defense:
"In the aftermath of Russia’s February onslaught against Ukraine, European leaders were quick to herald what German chancellor Olaf Scholz called a Zeitenwende, a change of an era, as Germany promised to finally spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense. That’s what NATO leaders pledged to do by 2024 at their 2014 summit in Wales… Will this moment last? Probably not. Transatlantic relations already appear back to the usual state, with the United States carrying the heavy burden for European security. Since February, the United States has provided more total assistance to Ukraine than the countries of the European Union combined…
“To be sure, several NATO members have boosted their military commitments since February. Romania, Italy, Poland, Norway and prospective member Sweden have all recently joined Germany in pledging to increase defense spending. The Madrid summit declaration will undoubtedly highlight a shared commitment to burden sharing. But pledges are meaningless without actual follow-through… One big question is whether the alliance has the energy not only to continue for as long as necessary the broad-based support for Ukraine but to tackle other key challenges as well.”
James Goldgeier and Sara Bjerg Moller, Washington Post
“While NATO bureaucrats and heads-of-state trumpet their unity on Ukraine, there is very little in the way of concrete shifts toward a fairer and more balanced division of labor within the alliance. The US is by far and away the country doing most of the reassuring in Europe. The American troop presence on the continent has increased by 66 percent since the beginning of the year, and will likely remain at or near 100,000 personnel for the foreseeable future. Besides the UK, which will temporarily allocate 8,000 troops to Europe for a series of NATO exercises this summer, the vast majority of member states aren’t walking the walk…
“Simply leaving Europe’s defense up to Uncle Sam, with its $800 billion defense budget and penchant for overextension, is not a sustainable strategy.”
Daniel DePetris, Spectator World
Other opinions below.
“Two of the moves, announced by the White House on Wednesday, are positive. One is the permanent deployment of an Army V Corps command post to Poland. This represents an overdue shift of forces from Germany to Poland. Unlike Berlin, Warsaw is a highly reliable U.S. ally. Also praiseworthy is the deployment of an additional Army brigade to Eastern Europe…
“Unfortunately, President Joe Biden's other pledges are seriously misguided. These include an increase in the number of Navy destroyers stationed in Spain from four to six, the deployment of two additional F-35 squadrons to Britain, and the stationing of additional air defense units in Germany and Italy…
“The boosts will encourage European allies to reinforce their enduring impulse against new military investments. Why take precious money from generous social welfare programs when the U.S. will do the hard work of protecting against Russia? Second, these deployments will drain the U.S. military of critical and finite assets that it needs to deter and, if necessary, defeat China.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
Yet “All the talk about enhanced European defense notwithstanding, there’s no good alternative to the US taking the initiative… If the US were to decide that Europe can now look after itself, the result would be a weaker NATO riven by disputes between frontline states that rightly fear Putin and Western European states, such as France, that still hope for some diplomatic accommodation…
“We’re not talking about Cold War levels of US military commitment. It would involve permanently stationing perhaps 15,000 to 20,000 additional U.S. troops in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, with commensurate additions from other NATO countries. Poland and other frontline states should cover the costs of permanent basing — and indeed, have already agreed to do so.”
Hal Brands, Bloomberg
"Four months into an invasion Mr. Putin launched on a bet that the West would crack, however, the big picture is that he lost that particular gamble. Transatlantic unity is holding. Even countries Mr. Putin thought he had co-opted via energy supplies — notably Germany — recognized that their true interest lay in thwarting his brazen attempt to destroy the international order…
“No one knows how the war will end. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine reportedly told G-7 leaders he wants it over by winter. However, the worst outcome — outright Russian victory — has been prevented, thanks to Ukraine’s steadfast resistance and the West’s firm stance. If both continue, more success will follow."
Editorial Board, Washington Post
"As Mr Putin’s regime continues to benefit from the rocketing global price of energy – compromising the effect of western sanctions – new forms of economic pressure and tactics are also needed. A suite of new measures announced in Bavaria, including higher tariffs on Russian goods, is welcome. More significant may be an emerging consensus in favour of a global cap on the price of Russian oil and gas. Such a cap would both starve the Kremlin of funding and reduce inflationary pressures on importers…
“That, at least, is the optimistic scenario. But for a worldwide price ceiling to work effectively, greater buy-in from other countries around the world will be needed…
“India, for instance, has ramped up imports of Russian oil since the invasion. In developing countries, an information war needs to be fought against Mr Putin’s disingenuous attempts to weaponise the Black Sea blockade. Concrete economic assistance should be delivered to these regions. To win hearts and minds for Ukraine, the west needs to show its solidarity and goodwill does not run out at the borders of Europe.”
Editorial Board, The Guardian
