Vanity projects: the Art of Deception

In an era marked by geopolitical instability and emerging threats, the need for European NATO members to fulfil their defence spending commitments has never been more pressing. The cornerstone of NATO’s collective security is the equitable sharing of responsibilities among its members, ensuring each nation contributes its fair share to the alliance’s deterrence and defence capabilities.

The 2% GDP Benchmark: A Collective Commitment

After Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, NATO member states pledged to allocate a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending by 2024. While significant progress has been made – with 23 out of 32 member countries meeting or exceeding the 2% target in 2024 ^[1]https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf) – some nations continue to fall short of this benchmark. Yet, given the intensified threat posed by an … Continue reading :

‘Signal’ Leak Reveals Deep US Contempt for Europe’s Freeloading

Recent leaked communications from top officials in the Trump administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, offer a striking insight into the depth of frustration within U.S. policy circles regarding Europe’s defence spending. The leak exposed candid conversations highlighting dissatisfaction over Europe’s failure to contribute adequately to collective defence efforts. Vance’s comments were especially pointed, remarking that European allies were effectively freeloading on U.S. defence efforts, labelling Europe’s reliance as “PATHETIC.” Vance expressed his reluctance clearly: “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” capturing a sentiment broadly shared within U.S. foreign policy discussions. Hegseth concurred, stating bluntly, “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading.” ^[2]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/25/stunning-signal-leak-reveals-depths-of-trump-administrations-loathing-of-europe ^[3]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/03/24/trump-cabinet-complained-free-loading-europe-secret-chat/

The discussions also underscored the imbalance in securing vital maritime trade routes. Vance noted that while only 3% of U.S. trade transits through the Suez Canal, approximately 40% of European trade relies on this passage. Despite this disparity, the U.S. frequently takes the lead in safeguarding these routes, prompting questions about why American resources are predominantly used to protect channels more critical to European economies.

“The question for Europe and Britain is resolve.. Putin sniffs that we don’t have any, which is why he does not take us seriously. Until that changes nothing will change on the battlefield.”

Sir Ben Wallace, the former UK defence secretary. ^[4]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/03/23/starmer-ukraine-peacekeeping-plan-political-theatre/

“Horrific to see in black and white. But hardly surprising” is how a top European diplomat reacted to the clear, heartfelt disdain for European allies ^[5]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr52yrgq48no that the most senior US politicians expressed on Signal recently. Across the pond – aka the Atlantic – Europe’s leaders and policy-makers felt “sick to their stomach”, as an EU official put it to Katya Adler, the BBC’s Europe editor.

But will the EU truly wake up to the new realities on the ground? According to the Signal chat, the cost of the strike is to be calculated by the American Department of Defence and State Department and levied on the Europeans, and added to a list of why the Europeans must invest in their own defence.

Interestingly, in a stark reflection of the shifting security landscape, the European Union has urged its 450 million citizens to stockpile food, water, medicine, and other essentials sufficient for at least 72 hours. The move comes as the bloc confronts this new era of insecurity marked by war, cyberattacks, and geopolitical instability. EU Crisis Commissioner Hadja Lahbib warned that “today’s threats facing Europe are more complex than ever,” acknowledging that citizens can no longer rely on reactive government responses ^[6]https://fortune.com/2025/03/26/eu-citizens-stockpile-food-water-essentials-72-hours-hadja-lahbib/.

---

Pete Hegseth: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” (08:49)

“But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.” (08:49)

S M: “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.” (09:35)

Pete Hegseth: “Agree” (09:46)

---

Europe’s Misplaced Peace Dividend

Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has enjoyed a prolonged “peace dividend,” significantly reducing military expenditures. However, rather than reinvesting these savings strategically into defence modernization or preparedness, many European nations have diverted funds toward vanity projects, some of the most visible being ambitious High-Speed Rail (HSR) initiatives. These projects invariably carry low Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCRs), demonstrating negligible to negative returns relative to substantial investments. Unlike essential road infrastructure—which underpins economic growth and productivity—HSR investments frequently amount to extravagant public spending with minimal measurable economic or strategic benefit. Such vanity projects amount to mere political pornography—visually appealing but ultimately hollow and devoid of genuine public benefit.

In short, Donald Trump’s second presidency has exposed the fragility of Europe’s reliance on the United States for its security, casting serious doubt over the future of NATO’s Article 5 guarantee. With Trump openly questioning America’s role as the guarantor of Western defence – and his administration expressing open contempt for European “freeloading” – the strategic foundations of post-war transatlantic unity are crumbling. Former UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has warned that Article 5 is “on life support,” and European leaders now face the stark possibility that the U.S. might not come to a NATO ally’s defence. Trump’s long-standing criticism, dating back to the 1980s, accuses allies of exploiting U.S. military power without paying their fair share – an accusation that has only intensified. As you can see from the data we present it is a just criticism . With American commitment no longer assured, the EU must now reckon with its precarious dependence and urgently build the industrial and military means to defend itself – before the vacuum becomes a battlefield. ^[7]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2er9j83x0zo ^[8]https://www.novinky.cz/clanek/zahranicni-evropa-trump-odpalil-svetovy-rad-clanek-5-nato-lezi-na-jip-40514660.

Case Study: The Czech High-Speed Rail (VRT) Project

The Czech Republic’s proposed high-speed rail (VRT) project exemplifies the pitfalls of misallocated peace dividends. In multiple articles on this website, we have shown that the project is founded on inflated passenger demand projections and questionable economic justifications. High-speed rail systems require substantial passenger volumes from densely populated areas to be viable. However, the Czech Republic’s relatively low and static population density means that the project is not economically viable – to the extent that it will be catastrophic for the country’s economy. Analyses show that the VRT project suffers from optimism bias and exaggerated claims, common issues in megaproject planning stages. Such biases lead to underestimating costs, overestimating benefits, and ignoring potential collateral damage. Given these factors, the VRT project can never be profitable and will divert essential resources from critical sectors such as healthcare, education, and defence. We will borrow money to go into debt as every single journey will have to be largely subsidised, quite aside from the capital costs of construction, which will be lost ^[9]https://vrt.wtf/en/2023/08/18/hsr-and-the-czech-republic/ .

For a project of this magnitude, there must be an overriding corporate public interest case to justify its implementation. No such case exists here – the projected figures used to justify the project are demonstrably false, further undermining its legitimacy and necessity. The feasibility studies were hurriedly signed off before the Ministry of Transport commissioned passenger studies were completed. Why? The passenger studies, which were conducted by Brno University, do not say what the Railway Authority (SZ) wanted. And the criteria used to sign those feasibility studies off do not withstand objective scrutiny. But no Czech politician either seems to be looking or wants to look; they all turn a blind eye to the most expensive infrastructure project the country has ever undertaken. Well into ‘sunk costs land’, we are now at the point that the government is seeking tender bids.

There is talk of using a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) to finance and construct parts of the VRT. However, such an arrangement would inevitably require substantial government guarantees to ensure investors recover their costs—effectively exposing taxpayers to the same financial risk. In essence, the burden remains public, even if the delivery appears private.

There is an American phrase to describe the VRT project, and it’s “Fubar” (an acronym for “f*cked up beyond all recognition”).

European Initiatives Toward Enhanced Defence

In response to external threats and growing internal criticism, European nations have begun taking steps to strengthen their defence capabilities. Germany recently approved a €1 trillion spending package aimed at boosting both civilian and defence investments, marking a significant policy shift toward enhanced military readiness. However, a broader and sustained European commitment is crucial to address longstanding underinvestment in defence. In a bold push to strengthen Europe’s defence autonomy, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed a €150 billion loan scheme to ramp up military spending. This initiative is backed by northern and eastern EU nations that argue that urgent investment is essential to counter external threats, reduce reliance on U.S. support, and avoid the political delays of negotiating shared EU debt. However, southern European countries – particularly France, Italy, and Spain – oppose this loan-based approach, citing concerns over their already high debt burdens. They advocate instead for grants funded by common EU borrowing, arguing that loans will only exacerbate fiscal strain. This division exposes deep rifts in the EU’s willingness to shoulder collective defence responsibilities at a time when unity and credibility are most needed ^[10]https://www.politico.eu/article/southern-europe-ursula-von-der-leyen-defense-plan-debt-france-italy-spain/. But whatever the outcome, it is clear that the era of profligate spending on vanity projects is over.

The Path Forward: Realigning Priorities and Commitments

The primary obligation of any government is the defence of its people. For European NATO members, this duty must include honouring defence commitments essential to collective security. Those EU countries to the east, such as ours, which suffered profoundly under communism and Russian influence, should be especially aware of the dangers posed by neglecting their defence obligations. Meeting and exceeding the GDP target is not simply a financial requirement – it is a minimum strategic imperative to ensure Europe’s stability, security, and credibility within NATO. As global dynamics shift and new threats emerge, Europe must urgently reprioritize spending from low-return projects toward tangible defence investments. Doing so will not only strengthen NATO’s transatlantic alliance but also reduce understandable resentment from allies like the United States. History will not look kindly on politicians who evade their fundamental obligations of defence in changing geopolitical times. Such actions risk being remembered not merely as misguided but as traitorous, undermining both national and collective security.

---

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176