Western security and the post-1945 democratic-led international system face growing threats.
The war in Ukraine is only the tip of the iceberg for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s imperial appetite. Putin denies these ambitions to Western media but salivates about them to Russian audiences. Take Putin’s “I’m a modern-day Peter the Great” threats toward Estonia, for example. Similarly, while China’s war on the West might currently be reserved to a vast campaign of influence and espionage in the shadows, Chinese President Xi Jinping views Taiwan’s subjugation as an almost divine responsibility. Xi also views the South China Sea as his private swimming pool and all other nations therein as subjects that must bow to his regime. China and Russia are cooperating politically, economically, and militarily in their respective pursuits.
Some in the West understand this threat.
Intelligence briefings gave House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) a sense of urgency, which led him to repudiate many in his party and advance additional military aid for Ukraine. The United Kingdom, which has an economy of only 75% of that of Germany, is committing increasing financial aid, long-range munitions, and armored vehicles to Ukraine. The U.K. has also said it will spend at least 2.5% of GDP on defense by 2030. Poland is spending nearly 4% of GDP on defense, far more than the NATO 2%-of-GDP minimum target. Warsaw is now a key bulwark for the Baltic states most vulnerable to Russia. Even French President Emmanuel Macron, who has traditionally reveled in the role of intermediary between the West and China, Russia, and Iran (a role that exists only in Macron’s head), is now saying Ukraine will not be allowed to fall. This week, Macron even sent a warship to join the United States, Australia, and the Philippines in naval patrols in defiance of China’s territorial claims.
These leaders and nations deserve credit for recognizing common threats. Regrettably, other Western powers have their heads firmly planted in the sand. Some, such as Prime Minister Viktor Orban‘s Hungary, are basically allies to Russia and China. Others, such as Canada, Belgium, and Spain, continue to view NATO as an American piggy bank from which they can draw defensive power and thus spend their own funds on more popular domestic policies. Others, even though they are direct beneficiaries of the Western security umbrella, adopt a de facto or functional neutrality on Sino-Russian concerns.
Consider the examples of Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. All are Central European powers bordering one another. All have had the benefit of traditional distance from Russia and a traditional assurance of unquestioned American support and protection.
Austria is widely regarded as a Russian outpost in Europe. Infested with Russian intelligence officers, Vienna’s political class and intelligence services are broadly corrupted by Moscow. This was long apparent even before a Russian espionage-related political scandal recently made headlines. And as with its strategy toward Russia, Vienna also broadly ignores European Union efforts to counter Chinese threats.
Switzerland presents a similarly interesting case. Switzerland has supported sanctions imposed on Russia since the war in Ukraine. But it remains determined not to send weapons to Ukraine or adopt a tougher stance against Russian threats to Europe. A top Swiss journalist recently challenged Switzerland’s historically neutral status. Eric Gujer decried the “joke” of armed neutrality alongside a “lack of weapons.” Switzerland, he said, wants to be neutral but also “be a little important.” Noting Switzerland’s refusal to list Hamas as a terrorist organization in fear of upsetting the group, Gujer observed, “We are too neutral for NATO; We are not neutral enough for Russia and China. If nobody really respects neutrality except us, it is not a protection, but a burden. Our ideal is a neutral small state that stays out of all troubles. But that works less and less.”
But amid the escalating tensions between China and Russia and Switzerland’s Western neighbors and partners, the viability of Switzerland’s “friend to all” economic model is unclear. A president such as Donald Trump might one day decide that the value of Switzerland’s services sector (its economic keystone) to America’s adversaries outweighs the value of that sector to America. If a threat of sanctions follows, Switzerland will have a problem.
Finally, there’s Germany.
While Berlin has allocated significant financial aid to Kyiv, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government continues to deny Germany and Ukraine that which they need most. Namely, boosted military capabilities and, in particular, weapons capable of holding at risk higher-value Russian assets. Ukraine is desperate to get its hands on some of Germany’s exceptional Taurus cruise missiles, for example. Unfortunately, showing a pathetic submission to Russian intimidation, Scholz refuses to provide those weapons. This stands in contrast with the U.S., which has sent ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles to Ukraine, and the U.K. and France, which have sent Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles. Scholz doesn’t appear to have noticed that Russia has not yet nuked these nations in response to their actions.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
At the same time, Scholz has stood firm on former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s catastrophic economic strategy of putting car exports to China before all other concerns. But with Xi now focused on using subsidized manufacturing to reinvigorate the sputtering Chinese economy, the Merkel-Scholz economic gambit is imploding. Now suffering a flagging economy, Scholz is groveling before Xi, begging him for an economic booster shot. Xi’s price for scraps will be clear: Germany’s obstruction of tougher EU action against China’s trade malpractice, espionage, human rights abuses, and threats to Taiwan/the Philippines. Oh, and also Germany’s refusal to support broader U.S. efforts in this regard. Scholz will likely swallow that pill in return for a dose of Xi’s economic medication.
Again, however, it’s an increasingly important question as to whether these neutrality strategies can survive a dramatic escalation of tensions between the West and the Sino-Russian partnership. It’s easy to have your cake and eat it. But when your closest neighbors and political partners are arming to prepare to fight, and you’re still eating cake, well, you risk those partners reconsidering the nature of your relationship.
