The threat to Europe is from the East, not the West

The title given by the EU to this week’s meeting organized by European Council President Antonio Costa on the topic of European defense was: “EU leaders discuss defense and transatlantic relations at informal meeting.” The title is very telling. What it says is that Europe is questioning the future of the transatlantic alliance, despite the remarks made by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who participated in the meeting.

This has been an obsession of European leaders toward Donald Trump as a candidate and now as a president. This meeting and the surrounding declarations echo President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s words following Egypt’s severe defeat in the Six-Day War of 1967. When resigning in the aftermath, he declared: “The enemy, whom we were expecting from the east and north, came from the west.”

Many thought his declaration was related to the battlefield, but it was about political and military protection. Nasser expected the US to lay the trap, when in fact it was the Soviet Union that blindsided him. Whether this is true or not, we notice that it is the dangers and risks coming from the East that should have pushed Europe to invest more in defense, especially since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Yet, it is a new president in the West that has become the trigger for it.

It is the dangers and risks coming from the East that should have pushed Europe to invest more in defense

Indeed, French President Emmanuel Macron this week reportedly announced that France will double its defense budget. He stated that the increase will take place after the conclusion of two military program laws and will be accompanied by major new initiatives. “I call on all our partners to do the same,” Macron urged, emphasizing the need for collective action. He also stressed that securing France’s borders remains the top priority.

What is interesting is that he chose to mention at the same time the ongoing trade tensions with the US. Macron warned that if the US challenges Europe on trade matters, it must respond with appropriate measures to ensure respect. It is the West that seems to worry the French and not the East. The question that remains is: should it be a source of worry?

Trade tensions are not new. I will just mention one file as an example, as it is linked to the defense sector: the historical Boeing-Airbus competition. This is a long-standing trade dispute between the US and Europe, with reciprocal accusations of unfair subsidies and even complaints at the World Trade Organization. There has also been a change in views regarding trade with China, with Europe being more open, even during Joe Biden’s presidency.

The reality is that Trump pushed Europe to spend more on its defense during his first presidency, which was before Russia invaded Ukraine. Last month, he pushed NATO member states to raise their defense spending target from 2 percent of gross domestic product to 5 percent. Yet, what might most frighten the Europeans is that he added that they should also match Washington’s contributions to supporting Ukraine. This looks like mission impossible for now.

The real reflection should be on how the US can enhance the lethality of the European armies and vice versa

Despite this, on last week’s first call between Rutte and new US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, “both leaders stressed the importance of raising allied defense spending,” aligning with Trump’s push for higher NATO contributions.

This is particularly problematic because, just like the US, many European countries are deep in debt. And changes might come more abruptly than expected, especially when the US Department of Government Efficiency kicks into action. It is only fair that the blind generosity ends. And whether we like it or not, in the pyramid of today’s needs, defense is at the base.

Can or will the Europeans go beyond their declarations and make up for the lost years? Will they be able to readjust the entire military supply chain to respond to the challenges that are still coming from the East and not the West? Will they agree on what needs to be at the national level and what should be at the EU level to streamline processes, increase efficiency and reduce costs? These debates have been ongoing for too long without any real action taking place.

Here too, there is another point of division between the Europeans. Macron is focused on pushing forward military systems designed and manufactured within Europe. However, other European leaders have voiced concerns that excluding US arms makers from EU subsidies could provoke Trump. I believe Macron’s position is too shallow and once again evades the real strategic outcomes to focus on the wrong issue.

This is why, realistically, an all-European solution is not the right option. The real reflection should be on how US military systems can enhance the lethality of the European armies and vice versa. So, Europeans should move away from sterile and futile debates that will stay purely as debates and focus instead on their real strategic interests and the will to achieve. This would garner respect and strengthen the alliance with the US.

The fact that Europeans are caught between East and West reminds me of the Aesop Fable “The Ant and the Grasshopper,” as retold by Jean de la Fontaine. The short story goes that the ant worked hard all summer while the grasshopper danced and sang. And as winter arrived, the latter asked the former for help, to which it answered: “You were singing? I’m glad to hear it. Well then, dance now.” Europe is facing winter and it is time to build.

- Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.