"Europe's Military Illusion: Still Armed by America" скачать в хорошем качестве

"Europe's Military Illusion: Still Armed by America"

Europe’s Military Illusion: Still Armed by America Introduction: The Autonomy Myth In the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, European leaders stood before cameras and parliaments promising a new era of military self-reliance. Emmanuel Macron called for “strategic autonomy,” Olaf Scholz unveiled the historic €100 billion "Zeitenwende" for German rearmament, and EU officials pledged to transform Europe into a credible military actor. But nearly three years on, a paradox remains: despite louder calls for independence, Europe’s armies are buying more American weapons than ever before. This isn’t just about economics. It reflects structural reliance—on American intelligence, logistics, command systems, and above all, firepower. Europe may be spending more on defense, but what it’s buying reveals a troubling truth: the continent’s security is still largely subcontracted to Washington. Section 1: A Deepening Dependence Billions Flowing West In 2024 alone, European countries signed over $25 billion worth of arms deals with U.S. defense giants like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing. Poland ordered hundreds of HIMARS rocket systems and Abrams tanks. Germany purchased 35 F-35 stealth jets. The Netherlands, Finland, and even neutral Switzerland followed suit. This is not diversification—it’s consolidation under American platforms. Data from SIPRI and NATO confirm the trend: over 60% of Europe’s new military equipment over the past decade has come from the United States. Even France, the strongest voice for European defense autonomy, operates U.S.-made Reaper drones and relies on American satellite intelligence in overseas missions. Why Buy American? American weapons are seen as combat-proven, interoperable with NATO systems, and available at scale. The U.S. military-industrial complex offers cutting-edge platforms with global logistics support and training. For countries near Russia—like Poland or the Baltics—the political message matters too: buying American means buying an unambiguous security guarantee. But this logic reinforces dependency. The more Europe aligns its arsenal with the U.S., the harder it becomes to build independent alternatives. It also makes any future EU-based defense initiative risk duplication, inefficiency, or outright irrelevance. Section 2: NATO’s American Core The Command Structure Reality While NATO is a multinational alliance, its command hierarchy is unmistakably American. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)—the top NATO military post—has always been held by a U.S. general. NATO’s integrated command network, air defense architecture, and nuclear deterrent are all centered around U.S. leadership. In practice, this means that any large-scale European military action—such as air policing over the Baltics, naval patrols in the Mediterranean, or deployments in Eastern Europe—is dependent on American coordination, logistics, and intelligence. Even EU military operations, like those in the Sahel, quietly rely on U.S. satellite imagery and aerial refueling. The Nuclear Umbrella Three European nations—France, the UK, and the U.S.—possess nuclear weapons, but only America extends a comprehensive nuclear umbrella to the rest of NATO. With Russia posturing its nuclear forces more aggressively, Europe’s reliance on U.S. deterrence is both existential and inescapable. Efforts to create a European “nuclear shield” have gone nowhere, and Germany’s decision to buy F-35s—capable of carrying U.S. nuclear bombs—only reinforces the dependency. Section 3: The Strategic Autonomy Debate France vs. the Rest France has long championed a more independent European security framework. From Charles de Gaulle’s decision to exit NATO’s integrated command to Macron’s repeated critiques of U.S. dominance, Paris envisions a Europe capable of acting on its own. But this vision clashes with reality. Most EU members—especially in Central and Eastern Europe—see American leadership not as a constraint but a shield. For them, the U.S. is the ultimate guarantor against Russian aggression. The idea of Europe defending itself without America still feels like fantasy. EU Defense Initiatives: Rhetoric vs. Reality The EU has launched several defense initiatives in recent years: the European Defence Fund (EDF), Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), and the Strategic Compass. Yet progress has been slow, fragmented, and often symbolic. Budgets are small, projects redundant, and political will thin. For example, PESCO’s 60+ joint projects include separate drone programs, parallel command systems, and incompatible communications platforms. Instead of building cohesion, many initiatives reflect national priorities and industrial protectionism. The result? Even as Europe talks about autonomy, its actions reflect a fragmented approach incapable of replacing the cohesion and capability offered by NATO—and by extension, the U.S.