A recent poll by the U.S.-based Pew Research Center suggests that Germans are free-riding on the U.S. ability to defend its NATO allies. Pew asked Germans the following question: “If Russia got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally, do you think Germany should or should not use military force to defend that country?” Fifty-eight percent of Germans answered “No, Germany should not use military force.” At the same time, 68 percent of Germans think that the United States would use military force to defend NATO’s easternmost allies.
The poll comes at a critical juncture as NATO allies intensely debate how to respond to Russia’s hybrid warfare, employed so successfully in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. NATO’s easternmost members, particularly the Baltic States, have rightly pointed to the gaps in conventional military capabilities that exist between Russia and the alliance, fearing that it might not be prepared to take effective countermeasures if push comes to shove.
So far, NATO defense ministers have decided to expand NATO’s Rapid Reaction Force from 13,000 to 40,000 troops and to set up a brigade-strength (~5,000 personnel) multinational Spearhead Force. Additional Force Integration Units of several dozen command-and-control troops in six frontline states will prepare the ground for the Spearhead Force. Furthermore, NATO has increased military maneuvers in and around the Baltic States. This has been spurred by U.S. assurance measures, including an additional $1 billion per year for the Pentagon to fund rotational U.S. troop deployments to the region. Clearly, the alliance is in the process of closing the gaps.
But what about NATO unity? Doesn’t the poll suggest that some NATO members such as Germany are too weak, cautious, or afraid to seriously confront potential Russian aggression? And doesn’t that mean that only the United States can guarantee a Europe “whole” and “free”?
In fact, the poll paints a distorted picture that provides proponents of a “hard-line” approach towards Russia with additional rhetorical ammunition. To begin with, the correct question would have been to ask, “If Russia got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally, and NATO member states decided by a majority to militarily assist the attacked ally, do you think that Germany, together with its allies, should or should not use military force to defend that country?” Had the question been worded this way, it would reflect the actual circumstances under which NATO’s Article V commitment would be triggered and its members would go to war. The German answer to this question, I expect, would have been different.
Make no mistake; the “German Michel” (a figure representing the average German — an easygoing and dozy 19th century German with nightcap and nightgown) is much less inclined to use military force than the average American is. This is the combined result of Germany’s starting two global wars that left millions of dead throughout Europe, and of a strict American-led re-education program for West Germans after the Second World War. Europe has since benefitted from the near-complete absence of German militarism.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that Germany does not step up to defend its interests. German interests are closely connected to the institutional post-WWII network (NATO, the EU, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) that developed in Europe, particularly after the end of the Cold War. The recent aggressive behavior of Russia runs counter to German interests. There are a number of compelling facts and figures showing that Germany is certainly taking counter measures vis-à-vis Russia.
After the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea, Germany was among the first EU countries to follow the U.S. line of sanctioning Russia for its behavior. Given that German-Russian economic relations have historically been very close, Berlin’s insistence on “targeted” sanctions is only understandable. Just recently, Germany and its EU partners agreed to extend sanctions for another six months. When fighting broke out in eastern Ukraine, Germany and France, supported by the clandestine diplomatic efforts of Switzerland, brokered two ceasefire agreements — though those agreements remain extremely shaky. In April 2015, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced a German initiative to support the Baltic countries in building up Russian-language media outlets to counter the Kremlin’s propaganda, which is still having a huge impact on Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltics.
Germany is also very active in terms of military defense. In the coming years, Germany will invest more than eight billion euros ($8.9 billion) in defense, increasing the number of main battle tanks it operates by roughly 100 to 330 in total. The merger of the German Krauss-Mafei Wegmann defense company with France’s Nexter is likely to lead to the development of the Leopard 3 tank as an answer to the new Russian T-14 Armata tank. Decommissioned German Leopard 2 tanks will be modernized and sold to eastern allies. German arms exports to Poland rose from 43 million euros in 2013 to 56 million in 2014. Berlin’s non-lethal arms exports to Ukraine even rose by 420 percent from 2013 to 2014.
Taken together, these facts and figures stand in stark contrast to the apparent unwillingness of Germans to contribute to the security and defense of NATO. Obviously, Germans are not free-riders.
Yet there is a problem with the controversy over the Pew report. When the focus is on alliance commitments, it is easy to overlook the fact that Germany’s approach to security is fundamentally different from that of the United States. While Washington has often relied on military might and “boots on the ground” and only found its way back to multilateral diplomatic initiatives under the Obama administration, Germany has always tried to mediate conflicts and to search for converging interests instead of stressing divergent ones. The politics of détente, Neue Ostpolitik, the achievements of cooperative security, and the Merkel government’s perpetual attempts to engage with the Kremlin are typical of that approach.
NATO’s ability to react to the new Russian challenges very much depends on a successful combination of the two approaches. Cooperative security can only be successful if advanced from a position of strength, while military force alone could easily lead to an escalating action-reaction cycle as was seen during the Cold War. Stressing the differences within NATO and portraying them as potential grounds for accusations of disloyalty only plays into the hands of Putin.
Statistics and opinion polls are important tools of empirical research. However, much depends on the political context in which they are generated, presented, and interpreted. In May 2015, the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel reported that, according to Russian statistics, U.S.-Russian trade rose by some 6 percent in 2014, while EU-Russian trade shrank by almost 10 percent during the same period. Does that mean that Washington is economically free-riding on EU sanctions? Probably not. More importantly, a March 2015 poll conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology and the University of Maryland suggested that a majority of 63 percent of Ukrainians (including the Donbas region) would find it at least tolerable for Ukraine to affirm a neutral position between the EU and Russia. Does that mean that Germany’s approach of identifying common ground in the ongoing conflict and avoiding either/or choices for Ukraine is the right one? Hopefully, it does.
Ulrich Kühn is a Research Associate at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (Germany). He coordinates the trilateral U.S.-Russian-German “Deep Cuts Commission” and has been working for the German Federal Foreign Office. Twitter: @UliTKuehn.
Photo credit: U.S. Army Europe
Tom Meyer (@tkmeyer0524) 
Yuri 
General Chaos 
csThor 
General Chaos 
John 
strategicservice 
David Alpert 
Styopa 
48repins 
Carl 
Luke Lee 
Sad to say but the better question is: Is all of Europe Free-riding on American security.
I simple review of % of GDP spent on defense by European nations shows they are unilaterally disarming in slow motion.
Examples include:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132
Where was Germany while we were getting rid of Ghaddafi? Oh yeah, they sided with China and Russia and abstained.
Who stopped the genocide in Serbia? Nato, but only when the US stepped in.
The fact that Germany wants to believe there is always a “diplomatic solution” and refuses to have any type of boots on the ground is exactly what people mean when they say Germany is free riding. Where has negotiations with Russia – or Greece for that matter gotten you? The Crimea is still Russian and Greece is still wrecking havoc on the European economy. You can only negotiate when you actually have the power to enforce your own will too. Otherwise no one is ever going to take you serious. Negotiating and appeasement didnt work with Hitler either. Its remarkable that Germany became so pacifist after the war but did not learn the key lesson from WW2 – that you cant appease crazy people – you have to confront them. and you can only do that with a strong military.
This doesnt mean that the military option is always the best solution. It just means you need that tool available to your disposable for opposing powers to take you seriously.
To deter aggression in Europe threats must be credible, yet the atrophy of European defense commitments undermines that credibility. Diplomacy is not a different tool, it is intricately wrapped up in the ability to use force. Carrots need sticks, and to claim Germany does diplomacy while the US does “boots on the ground” (I am so sick of that phrase), is disingenuous and belies a lack of knowledge of how diplomacy actually works.
After making a commitment to NATO to spend 2% of GDP on defense, Germany has decline from 1.4% to 1.3%. All the the diplomacy in the world cannot make a hollow threat credible.
We appreciate your sanctions on Russia (given your economy that was hard) but lets not pretend there are no negative consequences to neglecting your defense commitments.
“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”
Japan codified this in its constitution (on behalf of the US military authorities). Germany may not have done so as well but the spirit of this declaration has entered german socio-political culture. As such post-war germans have in fact renounced war as a means to settle international disputes. To this day the german society sees military force as something reserved for the one war, forced upon us by an outside attacker. Full stop. Hence the constant and unwavering refusal of the german public to sanction moves away from that course.
And hence why German free-rides for its security. Do you really believe that principled renunciation of war brings Japan or Germany security? Or was it the 100’s of thousands of US troops stationed throughout the Cold War on German territory, nuclear weapons, and the Bundeswher? By the way you do know the German military had a nuclear-sharing program with the US so that it could use US nuclear weapons delivered by German pilots and aircraft right? How does that factor in to your German socio-politico culture argument? Beyond Germany, do you really think Japan’s “Peace Constitution” has made it secure form China?
The German public has been insulated from the consequences of their naive thinking by those actually willing to use force to protect them.
Full stop.
I’m aware of those things and quite frankly I detest the state of the Bundeswehr and the general cowardice of the political class over here. But I am also realistic enough to wonder why keeping an insane amount of conventional forces when the only realistic threat to Germany itself is Russia, a nuclear power, and when a conflict between them and NATO has the ultimate potential to escalate into a nuclear exchange. That was the reality of the Cold War and it is even more so now with Russia feeling a lot less “secure” and with its lowered threshold for use of tactical nuclear weapons.
In reply you may try to bring up “interventions abroad” but quite frankly I want us Krauts to stay far away from these exercises in hubris and megalomania.
I never disagreed with the notion that Germany was free-riding, but then let’s not forget that this is a setup that the entirety of Europe and the US itself wanted this way. And if I may ask one question: What does the US really want – german “leadership” (which may actually end up in opposing certain policies or strategies the US is pushing, think 2003) or being an able but obedient auxiliary? Given the various reactions of US pundits and politicians over the years I do have the impression the latter is what is wanted. But isn’t that disingenious in itself?
The truth is those who can’t kill will always be the subjects of those that can.
Sorry, the bottom line is that Germany’s military contribution to NATO is not in proportion to its economic or diplomatic power. This in and of itself is bad enough but Germany also leverages its economic and diplomatic power to encourage European pacifism writ large. It is, in a sense, the free-rider-in-chief of the entire alliance, and as the Great Not-Depression drags on the siren song of defense cuts is luring in even traditionally useful allies like Great Britain.
All of Europe free rides on the back of the U.S. Military, just as Europe’s various public healthcare systems free ride on American medical innovation, R&D, and spending. There’s a reason European nations can afford their generous social safety nets and entitlements – they don’t have to pay for anything else.
It’s time for EU (and particularly NATO) nations to step up and shoulder the responsibilities that come with being world powers. This should begin with taking the lead in countering Russia – it’s absurd that it is U.S. troops who are now deploying to the new Eastern front and not the German, French, and English.
We are tiring of Europe’s feckless ways.
Of course they are.
One might point out that it was an implicit policy GOAL of the US post-1945 that Germany ‘free rides’ on US security guarantees to prevent their need to ever feel compelled to re-arm significantly.
For those who poo-poo the need for this today, I’d ask: which state in the EU is the most likely to be self-sufficient and ‘go it alone’ should the EU fall to pieces. More importantly, as much as it’s hard for people in 2015 to conceive of a different world structure, which EU state would thus be in a position to follow its own “not-necessarily-following-US-interests” foreign policy?
Think on that before you whinge about Germany ‘free riding’.
Sure they are free riders…with our money
The article is correct, All of Europe are taking advantage of United States Security Umbrella. To Promote the European Union, and then NAO Membership. United States Has been subsidizing Europe For almost 70 years. Europe Must stand on their own two feet, and meet the security Needs of Europe, and its NATO Allies. That Included the United States. If they are not will to defend Europeans, why would they defend the United States and Canada outside of Europe? The EU should Stop expanding, and No more NATO Membership, under United States Security Umbrella. Unless they provide, additional security for All of Nato.
Germany has ceased to be keen on letting Americans define what is or is not ‘security’. Our failures in foreign policy and military adventures over the past fifteen years have left Germans unimpressed and less willing to let American leadership go unchallenged.