Ukrainian War shows Europe must step up
By John Byrnes, Strategic Director at Concerned Veterans for America
In the spring of 1980, the U.S. was locked in a geopolitical and ideological struggle with the Soviet Union (USSR). The U.S. led a global coalition to balance the Soviets and counter the spread of communism.
At the time, fifteen separate republics, including Ukraine, comprised the Russian-dominated USSR, administered from Moscow. Another six European nations allied with the Soviets behind their Iron Curtain (the Warsaw Pact) and communist allies existed around the globe in nations including Cuba and Vietnam.
Facing the Soviets and their European puppet states in Europe was the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), composed then of 13 European states and two North American nations.
The geopolitical stage was set, and the freedom vs. oppression mentality ran deep.
I was in high school in 1980 and could not have been more anti-communist or pro-NATO. The USSR had just invaded Afghanistan and U.S.-Soviet relations were near their lowest point.
But steering clear of a ‘hot war,’ cooler heads prevailed. Thanks to President Ronald Reagan’s determined leadership, the U.S. stayed out of a physical conflict, and the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own hubris and ineptitude.
The USSR dissolved in 1991, as did the Warsaw Pact. All fifteen SSRs are now independent states, and most non-Soviet successor states of the Warsaw Pact are now NATO members. In less than five decades, European, and indeed global geopolitics, has been stood on its head.
Yet, the mentality of needing a strong alliance to counter communism and Russia prevails.
NATO has grown since 1991 to 32 members, some of whom border Russia. The United States is now committed to the security of all those nations with a collective 1,584 miles of border with Russia.
But Russia, while aggressive, and vengeful, is not the Soviet Union. Russia does possess 5,000 nuclear weapons, making it a dangerous player on the world stage. But its failure to achieve rapid victory after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine demonstrates the increased limits on Russian conventional military power since the end of the Cold War.
With the possibility of a lasting negotiated peace in Ukraine on the table today, several questions present themselves: What does the future of European security look like? How does Ukrainian sovereignty fit in that framework? And what role do U.S. conventional and nuclear forces have in that future?
European NATO nations include Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands. European NATO members along with Canada have a combined GDP estimated at $21 Trillion, over ten times the size of Russia’s. They have technically capable militaries and over 2 Million personnel.
Beyond Russia’s conventional military failings, the most important lesson of the Ukraine war has been the shift in Americans’ opinions about Europe’s security. While Americans deeply sympathize with Ukraine’s plight, and supported Ukraine’s early defense efforts, opinion shifted. Americans largely no longer support an open-ended, blank check approach to Ukrainian war efforts. Rather, Americans now are calling for a negotiated settlement and swift end to the war.
Solving for current European security issues is becoming more of a political nonstarter here at home, and that includes NATO membership for Ukraine to counter Russia.
Ukraine must be secured by Armed Neutrality, including trade with western neighbors, but not NATO membership, which would incentivize Russia to continue the war today. It would require the US to commit to the defense of another nation while continuing to create a security dilemma for Russia, based on their historical experiences.
We’re at an inflection point when the purpose of NATO must be refocused too. NATO’s continental members, with their economic strength and military potential, must take the lead and cease relying on U.S. forces, U.S. command structures, and U.S. military spending to maintain their safety.
NATO can’t just be a European-focused security alliance but must evolve to a European-led security alliance.
The U.S. certainly has an interest in a peaceful, democratic, and open-market Europe. The U.S. also has strategic interests in Asia and the Pacific Ocean, interests that require far more investment in military resources. It’s the Europeans’ turn to show greater concern for their own future.
The most realistic path forward for the U.S. and our allies and partners must be built on the pillars of realism and taking a realistic approach to European security.
The U.S. cannot, and must not, guarantee Ukraine’s security through any formal alliance, Europe must take the lead. They should buy in to an armed neutrality for Ukraine and follow up with the economic and military investments necessary to be the prime drivers of their own security needs.
This means greater defense spending by members, right-sizing and right-organizing their militaries for effective defense, and interoperability without immediate dependence on U.S. resources and leadership. It means having difficult conversations about what a European-centric defense alliance can look like when the U.S. prioritizes other security issues.
It is no longer 1980s. The U.S. is no longer locked in a Manichean struggle with an ideological nemesis embodied by the USSR. We face a multipolar world, with more diverse and dispersed security threats.
Russia is still reactionary and focused on dominating a “near abroad” security buffer zone. But China is a rising competitor with revisionist ideas about reshaping the world to advance its interests in ways that challenge U.S. interests and those of our Indo-Pacific allies and partners.
Europe no longer has a hard dividing line between East and West. European nations have seen their economies grow through more open markets and the introduction of market economies in former-Warsaw Pact states. Europe should work to ensure that Ukraine and Russia can maintain a negotiated peace that works for both nations.
Europe should take steps to reduce its reliance on the United States for security, while the U.S. should prioritize shaping its alliances and partnerships to best serve our vital national interests.
John Byrnes is strategic director at Concerned Veterans for America and a combat veteran of the Marine Corps and National Guard.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
