Europe's security cannot be outsourced. We need an independent military, so we can engage in independent diplomacy on our own continent. Foreign interests undermine our ability to engage with neighbours on our own terms. It's tragic that people don't see the fault of their own politicians because Russia made the terrible mistake of invading and is now, rightfully, seen as the aggressor. It should be recognized, however, that if economic, strategic or social conflicts do not get resolved through speech, the interests of the other party do not simply go away. Instead, a refusal to engage in dialogue might lead to unilateral actions. In the article on the NATO and Russia conflict we established a lack of diplomacy. Let’s go over a few more details regarding this situation and see if we can find a path towards a solution.
The Core Problem
The book “The Wise Men” describes six people. Foreign policy advisors to President Roosevelt, responsible for initiatives such as NATO, the World Bank, and the Marshall Plan. One of them, George F. Kennan, wrote a New York Times opinion piece back in 1997 which said:
“But something of the highest importance is at stake here. And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.
Such a decision may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And [will] make it much more difficult to secure the ratification of the Start II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weaponry.” —George F. Kennan.
In hindsight, this is a painfully accurate prediction. With one exception: after Yeltsin’s Russia had been introduced to capitalism through economic shock therapy, Russia did in fact ratify Start II when Putin came to power. However, the agreement was nullified when George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001, without citing Russian violations of the treaty. The US explicitly stated they wanted to build stronger weapons. That would make them a bigger threat to adversaries, including Russia. The turn to authoritarianism was still in full swing during 2008 when Putin temporarily became Prime Minister of Russia. In that same year at the Bucharest NATO summit it was announced Ukraine and Georgia were aspirational NATO members.
Jeffrey Sachs—who was in the Kremlin as an economic advisor the day the Soviet Union fell and has attended many other diplomatic gatherings since then—describes events around 2007 and 2008 as European leaders explained to him privately:
Numerous European leaders were saying to the US President, “Don’t think about Ukraine, please, this is not a good idea, just stop.” President George W. Bush said to them “Don’t worry, I hear you about Ukraine.” Then he goes off for the Christmas holidays—maybe talks to Cheney or some advisors—and comes back [in 2008] and says “Yeah, NATO is going to enlarge to Ukraine.”
I have spoken to European leaders who said to me, I can’t quote it cause it was said confidentially, but it was essentially, “I don’t think they take us seriously in Washington.” It was said to me in such a sad way, I thought, “Don’t say that, you’re the leader of a country!” —Jeffrey Sachs
To be fair, the plans for joining NATO had largely been put on ice after 2008, and little action was taken. Today some people make the argument that was a mistake, that European nations should have aggressively pursued this goal. At the same time, many of these same people will argue that NATO has an open door policy and thus cannot be a threat. That countries are free to join NATO, but that NATO does not pursue expansion. So let’s look at the public sentiment of Ukraine around that time. Wikipedia gives an overview:
- November 2000 – 30% for, 40% against – around the start of Putin's presidency
- April 2009 – 21% for, 57% against – shortly after the 2008 Bucharest summit
- October 2013 – 20% for, 66% against – shortly before the Euromaidan protests
- March 2014 – 44% for, 47% against – just after the annexation of Crimea
- June 2019 – 53% for, 29% against – relations with Russia decline over time
An overwhelming amount of people did not want to join NATO before Euromaidan. So why would it be announced as early as 2008 that a plan was in place to have them join the military alliance? How could you pursue such a policy while claiming to respect the sovereignty of nations? Public sentiment stayed the same for years, right up to Euromaidan—which itself was split among similar lines. Without Crimea and Donbass it was about even in 2014—so still it had not really changed, if you’re talking about what used to be the whole of Ukraine. But still, European leaders spoke like this at the summit in Vilnius in November 2013:
"We know how much Ukrainian people feel European, how much they care about Europe. We will, of course, now pursue our conversations with our Ukrainian partners, knowing well that we should always respect Ukraine's sovereign decisions." —José Manuel Barroso
Was this just empty rhetoric? Ignorance or deliberate? Jeffrey Sachs revealed that European leaders submitted to the ‘authority’ of the US in 2008 at the security summit. When the trilateral talks suggested by Ukraine were rejected by the European Union, they submitted to US foreign policy again. Knowingly or unknowingly, it shows a lack of critical thinking on the consequences of their actions. It can be argued the Ukrainian-European Association Agreement is not equal to NATO and that’s true. But it stipulated various points about cooperation in the area of security, which Russia felt could impact their base in Crimea. Whether that's valid or not, they acted on that and the Ukrainian president at the time wanted talks to prevent it from happening unilaterally. For some inexplicable reason, American officials were involved with opposition to that president. Why was the US there at all during Euromaidan, when they don't share a border with Ukraine?
Europe must be more assertive in standing up for their views in NATO and with the US. But how can they? Europe’s reliance on the US and NATO for defence limits its strategic autonomy. NATO decisions often reflect American interests, which may not always align with Europe’s priorities. This undermines Europe’s credibility in both deterring threats and supporting diplomatic initiatives. Not only when dealing with rivals, but also when it comes to convincing our allies to be more considerate of our interests. Similarly to how the single market trade block ensures Europe’s collective interests in global trade against larger nations such as the US and China, a cohesive military block can represent our interests in a geopolitical context. Both of these combined will bolster diplomatic credibility.
For an example of circumstances where it would benefit the EU to be a collective military power, we need look no further than Ukraine. At the Istanbul negotiations in 2022, while Russia had troops near Kiev, Ukraine offered Russia an agreement that might’ve been acceptable to both parties. According to former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, both Russia and Ukraine were willing to make major concessions to end the conflict, until the UK and US threatened to withdraw military support if any such deal was signed. This forced Ukraine into a choice: 1) engage Russia in war with western support, or 2) fend for itself against potential Russian aggression after a peace deal. There should have been a third option: agree to a peace deal, and subsequently be protected under the umbrella of a reliable unified Europe defence.
Vision for the Future
Within the framework of existing institutions, the reality of the world dictates we must be able to back any words of peace with military force. For a vision of what we must do, we can find an answer in NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner’s speech in May 1991:
“The primary task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. [...] Such a European security structure will have the job of organizing a security partnership of the European states to overcome the rigid hostility of the Cold War years, and to progress from confrontation to cooperation. [...] The centre of gravity of our Alliance is shifting from a US-led Alliance to a genuine partnership with the Europeans now playing an equal leadership role.” —Manfred Wörner
Most European countries joined the EU and/or NATO. But a shift in the alliance? Europeans playing an equal leadership role? From confrontation to cooperation? Not so much. However, military investments are already happening in Europe today as a response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is unavoidable, as it might take decades to restore trust in the world. In those decades, we must embrace the vision outlined by Wörner with determination if we want to be taken seriously as an independent diplomatic power.
The key to this is to have the American military leave the European subcontinent. Interestingly, the American defence minister announced in February 2025 they will not remain in Europe forever. Fears that this would leave us defenceless can be mitigated if they withdraw in a controlled manner, allowing us to gradually replace American troops with those from European nations. We must put in the necessary effort to make this happen without undermining our stability.
It will be argued that nations do not want to give up their military autonomy to form a European defence group. But will they have less or more autonomy if US-led military bases are replaced by commanders and troops of their own nation? Even if they follow orders that originate from the European Union as they are delegated to each nation, those nations would still have authority over their own troops. Frankly, it seems like it would be an improvement to the current situation, as we do not get to vote in US elections at all.
Not only does it make sense from a strategic angle, from an equability angle it makes sense as well. The American people should not be footing the bill for European security. The whole of Europe combined is almost 500 million people strong, if you include non-EU NATO members such as the UK and Turkey. The United States consist of only 350 million people. Meanwhile, they spend $850 billion on defence, while the European bloc spends a collective $350 billion. It would be preferable if global spending on defence went down and, perhaps counter-intuitively, this is exactly what could happen if Europe picks up its own tab.
Recent news indicates that the US is looking to cut its defence spending in half. It makes sense that we step up to fill the void, but we must do so while making a serious effort to engage Russia in diplomacy in a way that respects all of our security concerns. Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, but also Russia. Irresponsible rhetoric from American politicians—like suggesting Zelensky is to blame for the war—understandably provokes anger, but Europe must not allow such statements to push us into a reactionary stance. Our strategy should be rooted in pragmatism and guided by our own interests, not emotional responses to external political chaos.
Speaking of chaos and uncertainty, many negotiations—such as in Istanbul—happen in closed rooms. We rely on the accounts of sometimes questionable politicians to tell us about this, with the more dubious politicians often being granted a more prominent stage while ambassadors for peace are sidelined by media. Without transparency, how can Europe make informed decisions about its security and diplomatic strategy? We need clear records and accountability—or risk being pulled into conflicts without fully understanding why. If we form a military bloc, we must also ensure that corruption within the EU does not lead us astray.
Building Bridges
The US-Europe relationship as it exists today within NATO is not beneficial for European security, certainly not if you include Ukraine in this concept of Europe. One might rightly blame Russia for this, but what do you expect the Russians to do in their situation? That is how all people behave if they feel cornered. Not unlike a poor kid in an underfunded school system who feels unsafe, gets pressured into a gang for protection, and ends up robbing people at knife-point out of desperation. Or the German people sandwiched between two hostile empires in 1914 and making a terrible mistake that triggers a chain reaction leading to a world war.
NATO claims not to be a threat, but it says so while engaged in political and military interventions in nations friendly to Russia. Add the repeated refusals to talk about Russian security concerns and it makes sense they distrust NATO. The first step to reconciliation means recognizing that the provocation of these events is real. Why is it fine if people from mostly western Ukraine go to Kyiv to change the government, but people in Crimea can't decide to change their governing arrangement since they had no input in what happened in Kyiv? None of this justifies the invasion and it's not to say that the Russia we face today isn't a threat. The damage done over the years will not be undone easily. But they are our neighbours. We have to live with these people, and they have to live with us.
"History has shown repeatedly that continued dialogue, even when seemingly futile or frustrating, often serves as the thin line between peace and catastrophe. The Cuban Missile Crisis, various Cold War tensions, and numerous regional conflicts were ultimately contained through persistent communication when military logic was pushing toward confrontation." —Claude AI bot
Some say we can’t deal with Russia because Putin is a thug. And certainly his reign over the country was maintained through the murder of political opponents and journalists within Russia. But the US and Europe are close partners with nations like Saudi Arabia and Israel. One has no democracy at all, executes journalists and foreigners, whips dissidents that don’t agree with the king, and decimated Yemen with weapons that we sold it. The other obliterated Gaza and is building military bases over the rubble and annexing ever greater territory in Syria. Others say Russia broke numerous ceasefires in Donbass between 2014 and 2022 and can't be trusted. This OSCE map shows 93,902 violations in 2021—many deep inside disputed territory—making it difficult to claim only one side broke promises. It is baseless to suggest that partnership on regional security with Russia is impossible. Certainly in the 90s, as they dealt with terrorism, Russia could have been a partner in security. Without hesitation, Putin offered the resources of his nation for counterterrorism in 2001, the kind of terrorism that remains a problem for Moscow today as evidenced by the recent concert hall attack.
Our African and Middle Eastern neighbours must become partners in our security as well. Why? Because in the world of geopolitics and due to the existence of nations and their willingness to form armies, you cannot be secure if you don’t talk to your neighbours. Thus, Europe must make an effort to support the negotiations of new arms treaties across the world—including with both the US and Russia. And if you don't talk to Russia, they are effectively a loose cannon. At least three times we threw Ukraine in front of this cannon—Euromaidan in 2014, peace negotiations in 2022, and in 2025 the US appears to be abandoning them. The only way to prevent war is through continued and relentless dialogue. If one side refuses to talk in a conflict, it is impossible to de-escalate and find diplomatic solutions.
