Have you ever watched someone you care about keep making the same bad decisions year after year, and no amount of gentle advice seems to get through?
Sometimes the only thing that works is a proper shock to the system. According to one of America’s most respected generals, that’s exactly what just happened across the Atlantic.
A new U.S. national security document dropped last week describing parts of Europe as facing possible “civilizational erasure” and openly questioning whether certain countries will even have economies or militaries strong enough to remain reliable partners. It was blunt, almost brutal. And a four-star general who once ran both the CIA and Central Command says… good.
The Wake-Up Call Europe Finally Heard
Let’s be honest most of us who follow transatlantic security have lost count of how many American presidents begged, cajoled, and threatened Europe to spend more on its own defense. Obama did it with his famous “free riders” comment. Trump did it with tweets and summit tantrums. Biden did it with quiet diplomacy. Nothing really moved the needle in a lasting way.
Then came this document. It didn’t just ask for more money it basically said Western Europe is sleepwalking toward irrelevance. And suddenly, something shifted.
“In a way it was going after the Europeans but, frankly, some of the Europeans needed to be gotten after.”
Former CIA Director David Petraeus
Petraeus didn’t mince words in a recent interview. He pointed out that after years of polite requests, the current administration’s tough-love approach has finally produced results no one else could: European NATO members are now openly discussing moving defense spending to 5% of GDP something unthinkable even two years ago.
Think about that jump for a second. The old NATO target was 2%, agreed back in 2014 after Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine. Most countries still haven’t hit it. Jumping to 5% would be revolutionary.
Why Previous Pressure Never Worked
Here’s what I’ve always found fascinating: Europe never lacked the money. Germany runs massive trade surpluses. France has a sophisticated arms industries. The UK still sees itself as a global player. Collectively, EU GDP is larger than America’s.
The problem was political will. Defense spending is unpopular when you’re trying to fund green transitions, pension systems, and healthcare. Why buy tanks when you can buy votes with social programs? For decades, European leaders knew America would pick up the tab if things got really bad.
That assumption just got demolished.
The Numbers Tell the Story
Let me put this in perspective with some quick math:
- Current NATO Europe + Canada spending: roughly 2.1% of GDP combined
- U.S. spending: around 3.5–3.8% depending on the year
- If Europe moved to 5%, we’re talking about an additional $800–900 billion annually across the alliance
- That’s more than Russia’s entire current defense budget several times over
Suddenly, the strategic balance changes completely. Russia, already struggling to sustain its war economy, would face a western alliance spending perhaps $1.8 trillion combined on defense. Game over? Potentially.
Putin Isn’t Blinking Yet
But here’s the cold reality check: Moscow isn’t showing any signs of backing down. The same week European leaders were digesting America’s harsh assessment, Russian officials were repeating their maximalist demands for any Ukraine settlement.
- Regime change in Kyiv
- Permanent Ukrainian neutrality (no NATO)
- Recognition of all territorial gains, including heavily fortified areas
- Full demilitarization of remaining Ukrainian forces
Petraeus was characteristically blunt: “Putin is not going to budge.” He’s betting that Western resolve will crack first that Europe will balk at actually spending the money, that domestic politics will force compromises.
It’s not a crazy bet. We’ve seen this movie before.
The Frozen Assets Wild Card
Which brings us to what might actually be the real game-changer: those roughly $300 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets sitting in Western (mostly European) financial institutions.
European leaders have been tiptoeing around this issue for three years, terrified of legal precedent and Russian retaliation. But pressure is mounting to use at least the profits (around $3–5 billion annually) and possibly the principal itself to fund Ukraine’s defense and eventual reconstruction.
“$200 billion or even 100 billion euros of money for Ukraine would be a game changer. It solves their fiscal and economic problems for a couple of years.”
David Petraeus
He’s not wrong. Ukraine’s entire state budget is around $80–90 billion in a normal year. Give them a couple hundred billion in Russian money, and suddenly they can fight indefinitely while rebuilding critical infrastructure. Russia’s attrition strategy collapses.
The legal arguments are actually stronger than most people realize. International law experts increasingly agree that when a state commits aggression, the victim state (and its allies) have counter-measures available, including seizing assets. Russia itself set the precedent when it seized Western assets after 2022.
What Happens If Europe Actually Does This?
Three scenarios seem possible:
- Europe commits to 5% spending + uses Russian assets → Ukraine gets everything it needs, Russia faces strategic defeat within 2–3 years.
- Europe commits to higher spending but protects Russian assets → Longer war, higher costs, but West probably still prevails through sheer economic weight.
- Europe balks at both → Russia achieves most of its objectives through exhaustion, NATO fractures, China takes notes for Taiwan.
In my view, we’re heading toward door number two for now, but door number one isn’t off the table. The psychological shift has already happened. European politicians who laughed at Trump four years ago are now echoing his talking points.
That’s the real story here. Not that America was mean to its allies. But that sometimes being mean is the only thing that works when you’ve been too nice for too long.
The question now isn’t whether Europe needed the wake-up call everyone knows it did. The question is whether they’ll actually stay awake once the alarm stops ringing.
Because if history teaches us anything, it’s that strategic resolve has a shorter half-life than we like to admit. But for the first time in my memory, there’s genuine momentum. And momentum, properly directed, beats everything else in geopolitics.
Whether that momentum survives the next budget cycle, the next election, the next crisis that’s the multi-trillion-dollar question hanging over Europe’s future.
