Strengthening NATO's European Pillar

Please join the CSIS Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program on Monday, May 13, 2024, at 10am EST for a conversation on European defense and security between Max Bergmann, Director of the CSIS Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program and Stuart Center, Sophia Besch, Fellow in the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and CSIS Visiting Fellows, Mathieu Droin and Sean Monaghan.
In just eight weeks' time NATO leaders will convene in Washington for the alliance's 75th anniversary summit. Strengthening NATO's deterrence and defense will be at the top of their agenda, alongside continuing to support Ukraine. Much of this focus will be on European defense, given 30 of NATO's 32 allies are in Europe. The strength of the European pillar of NATO has been in question since NATO was founded. Before the last Washington summit, 25 years ago, then U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright warned the emerging European security and defense identity should avoid the “Three Ds” of decoupling from, duplicating, and discriminating against NATO allies. Despite record increases in defense spending since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began in 2014, Europe remains under pressure to do much more for its own defense - and US policy has barely shifted. This event will discuss the relevance of the European pillar of NATO and the challenges to making it stronger.
This event is the first in a series in the lead up of the NATO Summit in Washington, happening in July of 2024. This event is online-only.
This event is made possible through generous support to CSIS.
---------------------------------------------
A nonpartisan institution, CSIS is the top national security think tank in the world.
Visit www.csis.org to find more of our work as we bring bipartisan solutions to the world's greatest challenges.
Want to see more videos and virtual events? Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: cs.is/2dCfTve
Follow CSIS on:
• Twitter: csis
• Facebook: CSIS.org
• Instagram: csis

[@mightyrighty1]

Thank you great talk

[@whizbam4920]

How do I get a job at CSIS? I spend all my free time researching geopolitics.

[@morphkogan8627]

Get a couple degrees

[@Mr.barba97]

We need to spend on European industry. It’s not useful to us if we make the American rich and subsidize their workforce

[@tulsavol6653]

Would like to hear more on importance of Poland as a important Eastern European "leg" of the pillar....also so important the combo of the Pillar North: Baltic states with Denmark, Norway, Seweden, and Finland.

[@robertprawendowski2850]

⭐

[@pierman4858]

As a Dutch EU citizen I appreciate all that Germany contributes to European defence, but I think the French approach of strategic autonomy is better.

[@crimeajewel]

Nato and Europe taking their time....as ever.

[@isaac1403]

BBL Drizzy

[@kristinaF54]

The European Union is an economic union and trading bloc, it is not a military alliance or military industrial complex. NATO is a military alliance, not an economic alliance or fiscal union. However, membership of NATO requires the nation member to be geographically in the north Atlantic region and to be economically rich enough to afford to budget 2% of its yearly GDP towards defence spending. A nation can be in the EU but not in NATO, and a NATO member can be outside of the EU.

[@05KAR]

Article 42 of the Treaty of European Union is even stronger than the article 5 of the treaty of NATO. The US is not a member of the EU and that makes the real difference.

[@Mr.barba97]

Europe is whatever we want it to be lol. Change the rules and you good?

[@bunyip7343]

@@Mr.barba97 Eurovision..... as an example.

[@oppressorable]

I guess that Europe military could focus on a bit like Russia does. Lot of artillery systems, cruise missile, sol air defence systems and buy American planes. Each member could focus on different strength. Planes are so capital intensive that it would be hard for European companies to match US. Sure, Europe can build their own just fine but it will likely always be inferior to the American one since they just can't pay for as much man-hours to develop the system than the us can. Especially since European nation seem to not be able to unite behind a single program. Since planes are such a priority for US, it doesn't make that much sense to invest in duplicate research if they can buy American. As we have seen with Ukraine, with artillery and sam, an army can actually go far. If Ukraine had european economy man power, they would have rolled Russia with no air force needed. With Russia, European have a strong need of strong ground forces since they have member that are close to them. The US doesn't have as much of a need for a ground army. Canada and Mexico are the two main country with land border. Both are friendly and would be totally incapable to do noticeable harm even if they were not. I suspect that if European land forces were formidable and totally able to overwhelm Russia, as they should be able to, that the US would divert more resources to their air and naval forces. In that context, it might be possible to invest enough money to have some ground systems that would be superior to the American one and have a slight silver of a hope to maybe, just maybe, sell something to the US. You avoid duplication of capability to some extend, focus budget and can actually have a competent army even if the us say "No more planes for you." In the best world, all the Nato members would share designs and research and actually each have the knowledge to build any systems they have but would focus on building in factories evenly distributed on their territories. That's pipe dream but it would be so much more efficient. With the combined purchase power of every members focusing on the same systems, maybe we could see actual robotized military production plants. We could actually have large missiles that are actually less than a million each.

[@dsamh]

How much American treasure to keep Europeans safe and healthy and their trade lanes open and secure? And why exactly? They cut deals with China and Russia every time we look away.

[@asokt4931]

Well, the usa will oppose a European pillar - because it creates a dependency, no? Which aligns with us strategic direction for the past few decades?

[@Mr.barba97]

A eu pillar has more sway over the us