Earlier this month, just outside the small Lithuanian town of Pabrade, together with the president of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, I witnessed the roar of German Boxer tanks over a sandy plain. Less than 10 km from the border with Belarus, deafening mortar shells were fired. The bushes and trees were covered in thick layers of smoke. And yet, the contrast could not be greater compared to the time when the Wehrmacht of Adolf Hitler He marched into Lithuania 83 years ago and turned that country and the other states of Central and Eastern Europe into “bloodlands,” a term aptly coined by historian Timothy Snyder. This time, German troops arrived in peace, to defend freedom and deter an imperialist aggressor together with their Lithuanian allies.
It’s times like this when you realize how far you’ve come. Europe. Former enemies have become allies. We have torn down the walls and iron curtains that separated us. For decades, we even managed to banish the war between our peoples from the history books. Because we all adhere to a few fundamental principles: never again should borders be changed by force. We must respect the sovereignty of all States, large and small. None of us should ever live in fear of our neighbors again.
By attacking and invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has shattered each of these principles. I have called for this assault on the European peace order Zeitenwende, a historical turning point. Even in his public statements, Putin leaves no doubt about his motivations: he wants to restore a Imperial Russia, first subjugating Ukraine and Belarus until they became puppet states. No one, except perhaps Putin himself, knows where and when this ruthless pursuit of imperialism will end. But we all know he has no qualms about turning another country into a bloodbath.
However, Putin’s brutal imperialism will not succeed. Today, the European Union and its members are by far the largest financial and economic supporter of Ukraine. Germany alone has already committed 28 billion euros ($30 billion) in military aid, second only to the United States. But we must not forget that Putin is in this for the long haul. He believes that democracies like ours will not be able to maintain support for Ukraine for years.
Proving Putin wrong starts at home, maintaining broad public support for Ukraine. This means explaining, again and again, that helping Ukraine is an indispensable investment for our own security. It also means responding to the concerns of those who fear the war will spread. That is why it is important to make it clear that NATO does not seek confrontation with Russia, and that we will not do anything that could make us a direct part of this conflict. So far, this strategy has kept support high in Germany; in fact, it continues to increase. So Putin should take it seriously when we tell him that Germany will support Ukraine for as long as it takes.
The most fundamental promise that any government owes to its citizens is to ensure their security, in all its dimensions. Without security, everything else is nothing. In Germany, we changed our Constitution to establish a €100 billion fund to rebuild and modernize our military. Our goal is to turn the Bundeswehr into the strongest conventional force in Europe. Starting this year, and in the future, we will spend 2% of GDP on defense. For the first time since World War II, we will permanently station an entire combat brigade outside Germany: in Lithuania. The soldiers we saw in Pabradė are just the vanguard. And we will provide NATO with a German division on alert, as well as other important air and maritime assets. These are unprecedented tectonic changes in Germany’s security and defense policy.
And we are not alone. Sweden and Finland joined NATO, further strengthening the alliance. Many allies are now meeting NATO’s commitment to spend 2% on defense. What I saw in Pabradė is true for all of Europe: NATO allies and European partners are more united than ever.
For decades, NATO has been the maximum guarantor of peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic area. It remains so and should continue to be so in the future.
Europeans can and will have to contribute more to transatlantic burden sharing. This is true regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November. That is why I support President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to hold a conversation on the future defense of Europe. I already said this year that we must strengthen the European pillar of NATO and the European pillar of our deterrence. To be clear, there will be nonuclear weapons of the EU’: that is simply unrealistic. Nor is it intended to question the sovereignty of the French nuclear deterrent. At the same time, I welcome the fact that the French President has underlined the European dimension of the frappe force French.
We need to discuss how to get the right mix of capabilities to defend Europe and deter any aggressor, today and in the future. In addition to nuclear deterrence, we are studying strong conventional forces, air and missile defense, as well as cyber, space and high-precision strike capabilities. We are investing in these areas together with our allies and partners, thus also strengthening our European defense industries to meet the challenges arising from the Zeitenwende.
Given the proximity of our countries in Europe, given the values and interests that we all share, I cannot think of any possible scenario in which the vital interests of one of us would be threatened without the vital interests of Germany being threatened as well. This is the most solid foundation that the European pillar of NATO could have. It reinforces the message shared by all allies, on both sides of the Atlantic: an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. Let no one dare attack even an iota of the alliance, because we will defend it together. Whoever calls this talk should look at what we are doing on the ground. Pabradė might be a good place to start looking.
© 2024, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved.
