“Europe is facing its strategic destiny”

Isabelle Lasserre — Admiral, in your opinion, is the idea that the United States is less involved in NATO a fantasy or a reality?

Admiral Pierre Vandier — It's both a fantasy and a reality. The fantasy is the departure. For many reasons, there will be no American departure. Firstly, there is a fairly strong attachment in Congress to NATO, and therefore a sufficient mass of Senators to form a backstop for American foreign policy. Secondly, as we don't say often enough, the United States is a net beneficiary of NATO in terms of security. Overall, the Alliance provides it with a well-kept geographic area. So NATO remains important to the Americans. The reality, however, is less involvement. Europeans do not always fully appreciate that the United States has been facing a strategic dilemma for several years. Graham Allison put it well in his book The Thucydides Trap. The American military apparatus can no longer simultaneously handle two major crises, one in Europe and one in China. They have understood that Vladimir Putin has gone back on the terms of the fall of the Wall, but on the other hand, they are faced with a Chinese military power that requires a considerable strategic and military effort. They can no longer sustainably substitute themselves for the responsibilities that Europeans must assume. This is why they have taken the resolutely energetic step of encouraging Europe to meet its obligations, as set out in Article 3 of the Washington Treaty (1). So, less involvement, yes, but a departure, certainly not. But beyond that, in the event of less American military involvement, the question arises as to what form of coordination and political influence would remain in the transatlantic relationship, and how would Europeans assume more responsibility in this context?

I. L. — What does less involvement mean in concrete terms? In what areas could Americans become less involved?

P. V. — The United States could reduce the contribution of its forces to NATO plans, and tell the Europeans that it is now up to them to remedy the capability shortfalls this creates. Some of these will be easy to remedy, others will be more difficult to remedy, and will require more time and money.

I. L. — What about their participation in Europe's nuclear defense?

P. V. — The American B61-12 bombs are still stationed at several military bases in Europe, under US control. There has never been any question of calling into question the United States' role in the Alliance's nuclear deterrent.

I. L. — For decades, there has been talk of a purely European defense. What do you think of the concept, and why has it never come to fruition?

P. V. — Under the European treaties, defense remains a national responsibility. As things stand, European defense has no material reality comparable to NATO. There is an agency (2) which coordinates a number of joint programs. But NATO's strength lies in the articulation between the Alliance's political and military dimensions, …