Officials are slated to announce key program decisions this spring that could redefine the trans-Atlantic relationship on a political and industrial level. The government also wants to put teeth to the promise of an operational role together with France by initiating a naval protection mission in the Strait of Hormuz under an EU flag.

But Germany is famously sheepish on defense matters, its coalition-government parties CDU and SPD are far apart on key strategic questions, and Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer oversaw an intra-party struggle that some in Germany say left her weakened.

Here’s a look at some of the key items in Germany’s portfolio:

Répondez s’il vous plaît

Speaking at Munich, French President Emmanuel Macron once again offered French nuclear weapons in the context of protecting EU members, now that the U.K. is leaving the bloc. He largely repeated his points from an earlier speech in Paris, which amounted to an overture to European allies to discuss the issue further.

German officials appeared unsure about the whole idea, even though Munich Security Conference emcee Wolfgang Ischinger flagged the proposal as an open invitation that requires a formal response.

When asked about the idea, Kramp-Karrenbauer stressed Germany’s dependence on the NATO nuclear umbrella, which is underwritten by the U.S. arsenal. Since Macron has ruled out putting his country’s atomic weapons under some kind of EU authority, what exactly is on the table, she wondered. For example, does the proposal imply some kind of European nuclear industry — a no-go for Germany?

“We must have the conversation,” Kramp-Karrenbauer said. “But I can’t imagine coming to a decision that would have us leave the American umbrella only to slip under a French one that is much smaller.”

Creative law

Germany previously punted on a Strait of Hormuz naval protection mission to protect cargo ships against Iranian harassment, but Berlin wants to try again. Doing it with the Americans is off the the table because Europeans are spooked by Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign, so a strictly European mission would be ideal.

And since the French and the Dutch already have sent ships to patrol the crucial waterway under their own moniker, why not expand that mission into an EU-led affair? Putting the mission under the auspices of the European Union would require “better use” of permissions granted in the bloc’s founding legal texts, Kramp-Karrenbauer told the Munich conference audience.

According to a German Defence Ministry spokesman, that’s a reference to Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union. The section says the European Council can authorize a group of countries to carry out certain missions if they have the desire and wherewithal to do so.

As for the wherewithal, Kramp-Karrenbauer left open exactly what types of assets the German Navy would be able to contribute to a Strait of Hormuz mission. The timing also remains murky. While the minister mentioned the need for an EU summit on the topic, her spokesman said there was no information yet about when such a gathering could happen.

Issue experts have said protecting global shipping lanes should be considered low-hanging fruit for Germany, as the mission is inherently defensive in nature. “It’s the mission that Germany should have chosen months ago,” said Jeffrey Rathke, president of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Tornado warning

Replacing Germany’s fleet of aging Tornado aircraft is a can of worms like no other. That’s because a portion of the fleet is assigned to carry American nuclear-tipped gravity bombs into Russia in the event of a major war. Though largely symbolic, the idea of German pilots using German aircraft to deliver American nukes is something of a quiet cornerstone of trans-Atlantic relations. People here don’t like to talk about it much, but the effect is significant.

The Tornado aircraft are getting old, which means the nuclear weapons will soon need a new ride. And this is where things get even trickier: Each of the replacement candidates can satisfy one requirement of Berlin’s decision-making calculus, but not all of them.

Boeing’s F-18 fighter jet would represent a political commitment to the United States as the guarantor of nuclear deterrence. In such a scenario, the Pentagon presumably would lean forward to quickly sort out the requisite modifications and certifications, which is no small matter when it comes to nuclear weapons employment.

The Airbus-made Eurofighter, on the other hand, would dovetail with plans by Germany and France to build the Future Combat Air System — and prop up local industry at the same time. Airbus said it would consider a pick of the F-18 as a death knell for the futuristic program, a view that France is reportedly also pushing behind the scenes.

At the same time, there is the question of the U.S. government’s willingness to approve a European aircraft for the most sensitive of missions, especially when the Trump administration already feels cheated by the continent on defense and trade.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, once in the running, is not expected to make a return to the competition, the German Defence Ministry spokeswoman told Defense News.

Kramp-Karrenbauer said she will decide by the end of March.

Speaking at Munich, she also hinted at a new round of fundamental discussions about the nuclear-sharing mission in general.

“That is the political dimension of the decision that we have to debate within the coalition,” she said. “I want to have that debate relatively quickly, as we need clarity.”

Three strikes?

The “Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem,” or TLVS, is one of those German word creations that sounds as complicated as it is.

The program would replace the venerable Patriot anti-missile system that’s been in service for decades. Made by Lockheed Martin and its German junior partner MBDA, it boasts several new features, like 360-degree radar, interceptor coverage and open-data architecture. Crucially, Berlin wants complete control over all system components, as opposed to simply buying something akin to a license for using American-made gear, which is how many weapon sales work.

While officials had been gung-ho about the program, things have gone quiet since last December, when the government disclosed that contract negotiations over the industry consortium’s second offer weren’t going as expected.

At the time, the plan was to conclude talks by the end of the year, though that didn’t happen.

As of earlier this month, the talks were still ongoing, according to the defense spokeswoman. “The negotiations are on a good track,” she told Defense News.

Once considered a must-have project by Berlin, TLVS’ future may now look iffy, especially given there is talk of yet another, third offer to be solicited from the vendor team.

The comments came as a recently announced truce agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban envisions the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces over 18 months, on a path to the total withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The initial plan calls for an end to attacks for seven days and then the signing of a U.S.-Taliban peace deal before all-Afghan peace talks would begin.

Administration officials have expressed optimism about the plan, but on the heels of meeting with Afghan President Ashaf Ghani at the Munich Security Conference last weekend, the Republicans raised concerns about how the process will work.

To Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a skeptic of past Trump administration drawdown plans, the devil will be in the details.

“Are they real conditions, are you going to enforce them, or is it just window covering for a withdrawal,” he said. “I’ll say our military and the Afghan military has brought the Taliban to the table, but will they fundamentally change their ways? Can you really have Afghans in a peaceful society? I’m skeptical.”

U.S. officials have not publicly spelled out their timetable for an initial drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but the expectation is that a reduction from the current total of about 12,000 to approximately 8,600 will begin after the signing of a U.S.-Taliban deal. The initial reduction is likely to stretch out over a period of weeks or months, and a conditions-based withdrawal to zero troops could follow.

“If all sides hold up, meet their obligations under that reduction of violence, then we’ll start talking about the next part and whether to move forward,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters in Munich.

As U.S. officials were mum about those conditions, some Republicans cautioned against accepting a bad deal.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an ally of Trump, reckoned the presence of 8,600 U.S. troops will give Ghani leverage to negotiate the peaceful reintegration of Taliban, while a hasty withdrawal of all U.S. troops would be an immense blunder.

“The worst thing that can happen for the Trump administration is to push a reconciliation progress of dialogue and outcome, beyond what the market will bear,” Graham said. “If people think we’re going to leave Afghanistan no matter what, then the Northern Alliance regenerates and the country goes into open civil war. [The Islamic State’s Afghan offshoot] ISIS-K and al-Qaida are the biggest beneficiaries of that, and it will be Iraq on steroids.”

Critics of President Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq say the and the subsequent rise of the Islamic State group showed there are practical and political repercussions for how America gets out of a war, just as there are for how it gets into a war.

“A dose of skepticism is healthy and necessary. Nobody wants to be perceived on the wrong side of history on this thing, if it falls apart,” Tom Spoehr, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, said of reaction to the Taliban talks.

On the sidelines at Munich, Ghani told lawmakers he was comfortable with a drawdown to 8,600 U.S. troops. That presence, Ghani said, is a matter of homeland security for the United States because Afghanistan’s reversion to Taliban rule would make it a launchpad for terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., a senior Senate Armed Services Committee member who met with Ghani, said the administration should be, “driving home that the Afghan people overwhelmingly want us to stay.”

“Until [the Taliban] have some kind of change of heart or they’re marginalized, we’re still there, and I’m comfortable with the United States saying the people of Afghanistan can depend on us for as long as they need us,” Wicker said, adding: “As a federal legislator, I think that our withdrawal should be conditions based.”

Asked whether the Trump administration believes that, Wicker paused for a full six seconds, then said, “Well, I’ll just let the administration speak for itself.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Weeks after the Trump administration proposed a new $250 million tranche of U.S. military aid in its 2021 budget proposal, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told several U.S. senators what aid he’s seeking, and key lawmakers from both sides of the aisle say that, post-impeachment, U.S. military aid to Ukraine has broad support in Congress.

“I think [the support] was there before, and it’s there afterwards. Impeachment had little to do with this,” said Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the Environment. “It’s still the bipartisan and bicameral support for the military aid to the Ukraine that was there [before impeachment].”

The impeachment inquiry and trial focused on Trump’s July phone call with Zelenskiy, Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden ahead of the next election, and Trump’s hold on $400 million in U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Though Trump’s defense of the hold centered on his belief Ukraine was corrupt, he has since requested $250 million in military aid for Kyiv in his 2021 budget submission to Congress.

Ukraine has not disclosed precisely what it is seeking from the United States, but Zelenskiy said during an on-stage interview at the high-level Munich Security Conference on Saturday that it’s “a different level of military support” as part of a potential $700 million package that likely includes economic aid. He also thanked Trump and the American people for their past support.

“There is no block, and nobody blocks nothing. Now we’re talking about a different level of military support. On the whole, this is a very substantive program, for the sum of $700 million U.S. dollars. This is one of the priorities,” Zelenskiy said.

Instead of being the “chessboard” where other countries compete, Zelenskiy wanted Ukraine to be a player in its own right.

“Our main objective is that our army complies with the NATO standards to be exceptionally strong, and my objective has always been a strong, independent Ukraine, which can be in any union or alliance,” he added.

The last two years saw instances of Russian harassment of Ukrainian ships near the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait, which runs between mainland Russia and Russia-annexed Crimea. That’s why Congress ― in the last defense policy bill ― expanded the categories of aid available to Ukraine to include coastal-defense cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles.

The United States provided Ukraine just weeks ago with two Island-class patrol boats formerly operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, and it reportedly plans to send three more. Ukraine is said to be seeking even more Island-class boats, as well as Mark V boats, which are operated by special operations forces and manufactured by VT Halter Marine in Gulfport, Mississippi.

According to one former U.S. official, Ukraine is also seeking ship-to-ship missiles, ship-to-shore missiles, anti-air missiles and radars capable of detecting sea- and airborne threats, as well as more Javelin anti-tank weapons.

Just ahead of Munich last Thursday, Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy and two of Trump’s key defenders during the impeachment process ― Republican Sens. John Barasso of Wyoming and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin ― met with Zelenskiy in Kyiv to ask how they could “step up aid and support for Ukraine,” Murphy said in an account he posted on Tuesday.

Murphy and Johnson had also traveled to Ukraine last year, where they met directly with Zelenskiy while U.S. military aid was being withheld as Rudy Giuliani was pressuring the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter Biden.

“I believe there is an opportunity to build support in Congress for a new aid package for Ukraine, and I want to make sure it reflects what Zelenskiy really needs,” Murphy said of the meeting. “He calmly ticks off a short list of investments that he cannot afford in the middle of a war with Russia that the U.S. could help with.”

Speaking with reporters afterward, Murphy stressed the bipartisan consensus in favor of Ukraine.

“We just finished a very difficult moment in American politics. The three of us are [members of] different parties. We voted differently on the matter of impeachment. But we are here together because there is no difference between us or between Republicans and Democrats in Congress in our support for Ukraine, for our support for continued funding for Ukraine to defend itself and our continued support for reform,” Murphy said.

At Munich, Zelenskiy also met with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and several other senators.

Speaking with reporters afterward, Inhofe voiced angry misgivings at the Democratic-led impeachment proceedings and at President Barack Obama for bucking Congress’ attempts to authorize lethal aid for Ukraine in 2015. Yet Inhofe said there was consensus now, and definitely among Republicans, in favor of military aid to Ukraine.

“It’s very supportive,” Inhofe said of the atmosphere in Congress. “In fact the last time I mentioned this at one of our [Senate Republican Conference] gatherings in Washington, there’s just no opposition. They all want to do it.”

Aside from military equipment, some in Congress hold out hope for bringing the political power of NATO to Ukraine’s aid. As a member of the alliance, the country would see Russian challenges in the eastern part of the country taper off, predicted Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

“I don’t think Russia ever gives up,” Portman said in Munich, referring to Russian-backed separatists fighting in the Donbass region. Once Ukraine decides to “fully align with the West,” however, “then we might see some backing off,” he added.

As a NATO member, Ukraine also would be able to take advantage of training opportunities given to alliance members, Portman said.

The prospects of Kyiv actually joining the alliance during the conflict with Russia are murky, however. While Portman expects hostilities to cease as a result, critics have said the situation could escalate if Ukraine were to trigger the NATO mutual-defense clause.

Howard Altman of Military Times and Sebastian Sprenger of Defense News contributed to this report.

Energy Secretary Dan Broulliette ― a former lobbyist for Ford Motor Company, and the deputy secretary until he was confirmed in December ― is supporting the National Nuclear Security Administration’s $19.8 billion budget, which must still receive congressional approval.

Here’s part of his conversation with reporters on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

Why hasn’t the Trump administration made a decision about whether to extend New START, the only treaty that constrains U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, set to expire next year? What engagement with the Chinese on arms control has there been here, and what’s the dialogue between administration officials and European diplomats?

I’ve heard bits and pieces of conversations in the hallway about perhaps bringing the Chinese into a larger conversation around START. I’d have to defer to my colleagues at the State Department and other places as to whether or not that makes sense, or whether there is even interest on the part of the Chinese in doing something like that.

I fully suspect — or, I’m optimistic, if you will — that we’re going to get to some agreement worldwide with the Russians and others on a new agreement. What that looks like and when that occurs is not something that I can really comment on with any sort of precision or insight.

The NNSA budget proposes a 20 percent increase. Could you talk a little bit about the justification for that increase and where the additional $2 billion would go? Much has been made about it being funded by the subtraction of one Virginia class submarine from DoD’s budget request.

Well, the precise accounts where DoD pulled the additional funds from to cover the increase, I don’t want to say precisely because I don’t know. I can tell you that DoD is covering the cost for this increase. And I can tell you the purpose of the funding is to not only continue the life-extension programs already underway, it’s to build out perhaps more aggressively the infrastructure around the NNSA complex ― Oak Ridge National Laboratory in particular.

We look at the lithium processing facility, we at look the need for tritium down the road, and we look at the timetables in which we need them — it’s very important that we start now. And the president made the decision that he wanted to move up these projects and start them now. So that’s been our direction. That’s been our mission. And that’s what we’re going to do.

In order to do that we are going to front load some of this funding and work with Congress to achieve a $19.8 billion dollar request. How [lawmakers] react to it we’ll know in a couple weeks when the hearings start. We’ll know even further when the appropriators put the pen to the paper as to whether or not they’re actually going to appropriate the funds. But it is our request.

We think we’ve made a strong case, especially with regard to the infrastructure, that the work needs to start now, or we’re going to be in a position in five or 10 years that we’re going to regret.

The Department of Energy has some role in the analysis of Iranian nuclear intelligence. What’s your take on where the situation stands right now, whether there’s any kind of follow-on in the works to the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA? Where’s Iran at, where’s the administration at?

We do play an important role. We work closely with our colleagues in the interagency process, all of the three-letter agencies as well as others who collect information. We provide the technical analysis through our laboratory system as to whether or not these things are accurate.

The state of play, in Iran now is that what you see in the open source reporting is concerning. [Senior Iranian leaders] announced that they want to increase enrichment. We think that they’re serious about that threat. To the extent that they are, we will validate whether that’s true or not. And, you know, from the standpoint of American policy, the maximum pressure campaign will in fact, continue.

I think what we’re starting to sense is more and more interest in the part of the Europeans and others, to collectively come together and address the issue of not only JCPOA, but the other activity that we see all throughout the Middle East, primarily driven by Iran. The most recent attacks in Saudi Arabia are the latest example and perhaps maybe the most dramatic example.

But the cyber activity in Europe is beginning to be a concern to many of the countries here. If that continues, I think you’re going see an additional effort on the part of the Europeans to come together and look at a post-JCPOA approach to Iran.

As the concerns go up, I think the anxiety levels go up. And the time to act is now.

What signs are you getting from European allies here?

You know, after the attack in Abqaiq [a Saudi oil-processing facility], we saw a short spike in oil pricing worldwide. But it came right back down, so the economic impact was not nearly as large [as it could have been]. But with cyberattacks in particular, we’re starting to see very targeted, very, very direct, very effective efforts to shut down portions of a banking system or shut down portions of the telecommunication system.

When that happens, the effects are acute, and they’re noticed. I think it’s starting to draw attention in places like Berlin and places like London, other places here in Europe, where it’s going to force some activity and force some conversations.

The proposal follows Berlin’s expression of political support for the French Navy, which last month began patrolling the volatile waterway, a critical chokepoint for oil shipments out of the Arabian Gulf. Germany’s backing is largely symbolic, however, as there are no promises of ships or aircraft on the table.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, Kramp-Karrenbauer said putting the mission under the auspices of the European Union would require “better use” of authorities granted in the bloc’s founding legal texts.

Germans have debated partaking in a Strait of Hormuz mission since last summer, when Iranian forces seized a British-flagged oil tanker transiting the strait. The move was perceived here as an act of harassment of the types of open shipping lanes on which Germany’s economy depends.

Last July, Berlin rejected a request to join a U.S.-led naval protection mission for fear of getting tangled up in shooting war between the United States and Iran.

Germany still holds out hope for the Iran nuclear deal, and any participation in Washington’s campaign of maximum pressure on Tehran could compromise whatever prospects are left for the accord’s survival.

Kramp-Karrenbauer stressed that the envisioned EU mission’s only objective would be to keep shipping lanes open. That means placing an emphasis on surveillance assets to monitor commercial traffic rather than warships built for maximum damage.

Details of the proposal should be hammered out at a special EU summit dedicated to the subject, according to the defense minister, who avoided giving details about Germany’s commitment before an agreement is reached in principle by members of the bloc.

Asked if Germany’s armed forces would be able to support the proposed mission with weapons and equipment given the Bundeswehr’s lackluster state of affairs, Kramp-Karrenbauer noted how some Navy assets are already tied up in the Mediterranean Sea. But, she added, “the Bundeswehr has always managed to carry out all tasks required.”

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s top diplomat, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, said his government would support a German role in securing maritime commerce in the Gulf, German newspaper Welt am Sonntag reported.

But it matters little to the kingdom whether such a mission is headed by the United States, France or the EU. “That’s a decision the Germans eventually have to make, of course,” the foreign minister told the newspaper.

“Reliance on Chinese 5G vendors, for example, could render our partners’ critical systems vulnerable to disruption, manipulation and espionage,” Esper said in a speech at the high-level Munich Security Conference. “It could also jeopardize our communication and intelligence sharing capabilities, and by extension, our alliances.”

Adopting Huawei’s equipment on allies’ 5G networks, Esper said, “could inject serious risk into our defense cooperation.” It was a tough statement partially at odds with other U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who offered assurances last week that U.S.-U.K. intelligence sharing remained strong despite Britain’s decision to include Huawei in some parts of its nascent 5G network.

A day earlier, the White House’s point person for international telecommunications policy, Robert Blair, told reporters: “There will be no erosion in our overall intelligence sharing.” But he added that Washington would take a “hard look” at the consequences.

If the messages were mixed on the response, Esper, Pompeo and U.S. lawmakers of both parties (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) were unified in their assessment that China will be able to use Huawei’s 5G participation for cyber espionage and other subversive aims, which they deemed a fundamental security threat.

“Huawei and other Chinese state-backed tech companies are Trojan horses for Chinese intelligence,” Pompeo said as part of a speech that claimed “the West is winning” against authoritarian regimes.

Germany hasn’t yet decided whether it would adopt an outright ban on Huawei or restrictions with the potential to exclude the Chinese telecom giant. The British government, two weeks ago, defied U.S. President Donald Trump when it decided to let the firm build parts of the country’s network.

The global community, Esper said, should be deeply concerned about Beijing’s use of artificial intelligence and technologies “to surveil and repress Muslim minorities, journalists and pro-democracy protesters.”

Last December, NATO leaders agreed for the first time that they must as a group consider the impact of China’s rise to economic and military prominence on their security. Esper publicly presented America’s concerns about China when he met with allies at NATO headquarters on Wednesday and Thursday ― but he said Saturday that the alliance is still forming a China strategy.

“First and foremost, NATO should focus on the security of the continent, deterring Russian bad behavior,” he said.

During the question and answer portion of Esper’s remarks, former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves questioned what alternative the U.S. government is presenting ― prompting Esper to acknowledge it is a work in progress.

While the White House explores partnerships with firms like Samsung, Nokia and Ericsson, the Pentagon is inviting commercial vendors to test 5G prototypes at several of its military facilities.

Beyond Huawei and 5G, Esper called on the international community to “wake up to the challenges presented by China’s manipulation of the long-standing international rules-based order that has benefited all of us for many decades.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping, Esper said, is taking his country “faster and further in the wrong direction — more internal repression, more predatory economic practices, more heavy-handedness, and most concerning for me, a more aggressive military posture.”

Though the U.S. doesn’t seek conflict with China, Esper said, Washington is investing in both conventional and advanced missile defense capabilities as Beijing develops and deploys long-range fires “to intimidate and threaten its neighbors.”

As China develops directed-energy weapons and killer satellites, the Pentagon is standing up a new Space Force “to ensure freedom of use, commerce and navigation in, to and through space, for all.”

Esper also touted the size of the Pentagon’s proposed research and development budget for 2021, which potentially divests from certain legacy systems to instead fund nascent hypersonic missiles, artificial intelligence and autonomous systems.

Countries here spent $289 billion in 2019, which is 4.2 percent more than in 2018. Within that budget, the share of new investments grew to 23.1 percent from 19.8 percent, analysts wrote in their annual study on global defense capabilities, dubbed “Military Balance 2020” and released at the Munich Security Conference.

Clocking in at 4 percent, global defense spending saw a similar increase, the largest in ten years. Nations are spending more because they have recovered from the financial crisis and due to what IISS director-general John Chipman dubbed “sharpening threat perceptions.”

For Europe, the main worry is Russia, especially on the eastern flank. The Pentagon in response has shored up its troop presence on the continent following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

The trans-Atlantic relationship has turned somewhat icy since President Donald Trump took office, however. Trump has repeatedly claimed, in strong terms, that Europe is taking advantage of the United Stated on defense and trade. Those proclamations are viewed by many here as part of a pattern in Washington that eschews multilateralism as an organizing principle of the West.

In that context, the new study argues, the U.S. troop presence may be losing its shine as a manifestation of America’s bond with Europe.

The same logic also applies elsewhere on the globe, according to Chipman. “Within NATO and beyond, the arrival of additional US personnel and equipment is not necessarily sufficient anymore to dispel allies’ and partners’ concerns over US strategy, commitment and engagement, or wholly deter opponents,” he told reporters.

The think tank’s observation undercuts a longstanding argument in Trump’s Washington that harsh White House rhetoric should be taken with a grain of salt while the Pentagon is still hard at work in maintaining old alliances around the globe, most visibly by basing U.S. forces there.

“Deterrence is not only about disposition of forces,” Chipman told Defense News in a brief interview. “Every US defense secretary reiterates the commitment to Europe as being reflected in spending. But when you have a commander-in-chief who puts doubt on that, it doesn’t matter how much you spend.”

The IISS argument fits into the theme of this year’s Munich Security Conference, “Westlessness.” The term of art is meant to describe the community of western countries drifting apart as governments realize that the alliance’s common values may no longer be universally shared as they once were.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, for his part, still believes the West, with NATO as its most prominent defense organization, can count on the United States. Speaking with reporters at the Munich Security Conference, he said the West maintains the ability to act, if necessary, citing America’s commitment and troop presence in Europe as a major enabler.

Washington’s defense spending, meanwhile, sat at $684.6 billion in 2019, according to the think tank. “The nominal increase in U.S. defense spending – at $53.4 billion – came close to equalling the UK’s entire budget on defense of $54.8 billion. This nominal U.S. increase would, if measured on its own, constitute the seventh-largest defense budget in the world.”

China and Russia spent $181.1 billion and $61.6 billion on defense in 2019, respectively, according to the study.

In front of the cameras and behind the scenes at the international Munich Security Conference, Pelosi, Trump administration officials and lawmakers of both parties warned allies that China’s communist leaders could force the company to use its equipment for cyber espionage and and other subversive aims.

“Nations cannot cede telecommunications infrastructure to China for financial expediency,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “Such an ill-conceived concession will only embolden [Chinese President Xi Jinping] as he undermines democratic values, human rights, economic independence and national security.”

With her remarks, Pelosi lends a strong voice to the Trump administration’s hard push for a blanket ban. She’s taken a less abrasive tack toward America’s European allies than the Trump administration, and sources say her position is fueled by years on the House Intelligence Committee and by constituents in the Bay Area, near Silicon Valley.

Pelosi said there was no bipartisan divide on the topic.

“We have an agreement in that regard, we put it in our [2020] national defense authorization bill because we believe it is a real danger,” she said. “We have to be very careful about how we go forward.”

Pelosi cast the adoption of Huawei equipment as enabling an autocracy over democracy, saying that the “most insidious form of aggression” would be to allow a communications network to be “dominated by a government who does not share our values.”

“We must invest in other viable options that will take us into the future while preserving our values and institutions,” she said, adding that Western leaders ought to build “something together that will be about freedom of information.”

There are seven congressional delegations in Munich, made up more than 40 lawmakers. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is leading one of them, said they are unified on Huawei.

“Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump see Huawei the same,” he said.

Graham did level an additional economic warning as the U.S. looks ahead at trade talks with the European Union and later the U.K.

“The delegation has been speaking with one voice: Huawei technology deals you out of integrating yourself with the American economy,” Graham said. “We all have to do better by giving you alternatives, but Huawei integration into your economy and your systems would be devastating to the relationship.”

Two weeks ago, the British government decided to allow Huawei to build parts of the country’s network, but with restrictions that prevented the firm from working on pieces that would be “critical to security.” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is now facing pushback from lawmakers in his own Conservative Party, and several have reportedly worked to strike a compromise.

Germany has been weighing its own rules. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative party this week backed a strategy paper that stopped short of banning Huawei technology outright and instead barred “untrustworthy” companies deemed to be subject to state influence from the process ― which may yet exclude Huawei.

Though Huawei denies that it works with China’s intelligence services and says it would refuse Chinese government requests for information, U.S. officials argue Huawei can covertly access mobile phone networks around the world through “back doors” and that Chinese companies are compelled to cooperate with their government.

The Trump administration’s pressure tactics have included warnings that nations adopting Huawei equipment on their 5G networks would risk their U.S. intelligence sharing relationships, but Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last month seemed to back off and endorse America’s arrangement with Britain during a visit there.

And on Friday, both Pelosi and Trump administration officials were making appeals to trans-Atlantic values.

“The president feels strongly that we have to work together to ensure that our 5G technology evolves in a way that supports the underlying values and principles which we have brought all of our countries together over the years,” the White House’s point person for international telecommunications policy, Robert Blair, said at a roundtable with reporters.

“We want to make sure that whatever 5G becomes, it ensures freedom of speech, not the ability to censor messages which any government does not feel is is supportive of their overall ideology, freedom of assembly, rather than the ability to track dissidents within a country or outside of a country,” Blair added.

Another part of the administration’s push is to take on the criticism that it has not presented a cheaper, better alternative to Chinese technology. The White House is working to develop western 5G technologies through partnerships with telecom firms like South Korea-based Samsung, Finland-based Nokia and Sweden-based Ericsson.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said America should consider taking a controlling stake in Nokia and Ericsson to blunt Huawei’s “drive to domination.” But on Friday, Blair said instead that America is working toward a “partnership with industry.”

“It’s an ongoing discussion about how the U.S. government can best partner with industry,” Blair said. “It would be a U.S. effort with likeminded partners from around the world … and it’s a matter of months, not years.”

The official said the agreement for a seven-day “reduction in violence” to be followed by the start of all-Afghan peace talks within 10 days is “very specific” and covers the entire country including Afghan forces.

The developments come as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper met Friday in Munich with Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani. They spoke on the sidelines of an international security forum in Munich.

A truce had been widely anticipated, and President Donald Trump has agreed in principle to the deal, which could lead to the start of significant U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials.

The final details were hammered out in recent days by U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban representatives in Doha, Qatar. Khalilzad was in Munich and attended Pompeo and Esper’s meeting as did Gen. Scott Miller, the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan.

People familiar with the plan’s outlines say it calls for the successful conclusion of the weeklong truce to be followed within 10 days by the start of all-Afghan negotiations to set the road map for the country’s political future.

U.S. officials have brushed aside claims that a Taliban ultimatum forced their hand. And they noted that, despite Trump’s campaign pledge to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Republican president has nixed previous deals that appeared close in response to attacks on U.S. forces.

The Trump administration will have to convince U.S. lawmakers who have been skeptical of the peace process. One of them, Sen. Lindsey Graham, S-S.C., said he was not yet ready to support fewer than 8,600 troops in Afghanistan.

“I find it difficult to believe that the Taliban renounce al-Qaida in a serious way, but I want to give it a chance,” he said on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. “If you go below 8600, and you’re putting our homeland at risk, unless there’s a fundamental change on the ground.”

Asked what triggered his evolution in thought, Graham said, “After 18 years, let’s give it a whirl. Let’s give it a chance. If the Taliban seems willing to talk to the Afghan government, let’s see what happens.”

Joe Gould of Defense News contributed to this report.

Government officials made the move with the publication of a paper this week outlining the types of technology Berlin wants to buy at home, in Europe or from global vendors. The designation of a key technology means the government can sidestep European Union rules requiring public acquisitions be open to companies throughout the bloc.

The areas of artificial intelligence, electronic warfare, networked operations and cryptology, and defense-related information and communications technology are in the category deemed so crucial to national security that the government wants to keep the sector healthy.

“A technological challenge for our security and defense lies in the area of digitalization and artificial intelligence,” read the strategy document, issued by the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.

“Maintaining cybersecurity is the prerequisite for the digital advancement of the state, the economy and society, and it is equally important for the sovereignty of Germany and Europe,” it added.

The new designation of cyber technologies as worthy of special protection sets up a delicate dance between maintaining a national industrial ecosystem while remaining true to the idea of a European Union with a single market.

German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said her agency remains focused on cyber capabilities from a European perspective. For example, officials are working to ensure the relevant U.K. authorities remain plugged into EU networks after Brexit.

The bloc, she said, must increase its cooperation on cyber issues, or risk falling behind China and the United States, Kramp-Karrenbauer said at the Munich Security Conference on Thursday.

Germany’s contributions to the NATO Very High Readiness Joint Task Force drives the country’s plans for fielding a new information backbone for the land forces of the Bundeswehr, she said. In that context, officials have begun studying new approaches to managing the electricity required to power new communications kit on the battlefield, the minister added.

It remains to be seen how the government will use the new strategy document on key national technologies to make investment decisions, said Matthias Wachter, a defense analyst with the Federation of German Industries, or BDI.

For example, the stated domestic preference in electronic-warfare technology will be put to the test with the Air Force’s upcoming buy of new aircraft for electronic warfare, Wachter said. In the running are the Airbus-made Eurofighter as a local option and the Boeing F-18 Growler from the United States.

“There is nothing legally binding” in the new document, the analyst said, which means the decision could go either way. “But if you take the paper seriously, the Growler would be out.”