Author: Nino Macharashvili
On February 28, U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on live TV. In response, Zelensky left the White House without signing the anticipated agreement on Ukrainian energy resources. The meeting was followed by an emergency summit in London on March 2, attended by European heads of state, the Canadian Prime Minister, the Turkish Foreign Minister, NATO’s Secretary General, and the President of the European Commission. The main topic of the summit was ensuring Ukraine’s security.
European leaders are currently actively working to safeguard Ukraine’s security. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated, “We [Europe] are in an era of rearmament.” She presented a “European rearmament” plan to European leaders which involves a significant increase in defense spending. The plan aims to contribute to Ukraine’s security in the short term and Europe’s security in the long term.
From what has been said above, it is evident Europe is committed to defending Ukraine. However, an important question arises: what are Europe’s actual defense capabilities, and is it realistic for Europe to defend Ukraine without U.S. support? To answer this, we must assess Europe’s military capabilities.
The Role of the U.S. in European Security
According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s active-duty manpower data center (Defense Manpower Data Center), as of July 2024, the U.S. had 65,000 troops permanently stationed across Europe, along with extensive weaponry, defense systems, and other NATO-vital assets. Additionally, 10,000 soldiers are deployed rotationally in Poland — NATO’s eastern flank and its closest point to Russia. The U.S. defense budget in 2024 reached 860 billion USD, which is twice the amount allocated for defense by all other NATO member states combined. Although more than 200 billion USD was allocated by the Biden administration to assist Ukraine, Trump believes it is time for the U.S. to reduce its military presence in Europe and shift the responsibility for defense to the European allies. During his first term, Trump frequently “threatened” European states with leaving NATO, citing their insufficient defense spending as a key reason.
Trump’s position can be understood through his tendency toward isolationism. His “America First” policy advocates for the U.S. to refrain from playing the role of “the world’s policeman” and to prioritize its own interests. With Trump focused on Ukraine’s natural resources, the potential economic benefits could serve as a basis for U.S. involvement in the country. This presence could act as a deterrent to Russia’s renewed aggression, although this is not necessarily Trump’s primary objective.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric, a U.S. withdrawal from NATO is not officially being discussed at this stage, and American military assets remain in Europe. There is still a possibility that NATO’s Article 5 could be invoked if there is an attack on NATO, however, as one Eastern European leader pointed out, this situation is similar to Schrödinger’s cat: it exists in both states — dead and alive — until the box is opened. Therefore, the exact answer as to whether Article 5 will be activated will only be known once it is tested.
The Military Capabilities of NATO’s European Allies
NATO’s European allies have a combined military strength of approximately 1.47 million soldiers. However, according to the economic research center Bruegel, the ability to halt threats in Europe is heavily reliant on the U.S. In the event of a large-scale attack, NATO expects the U.S. to deploy hundreds of thousands of additional troops to Europe. If this support were to diminish, Europe would be forced to independently address the security gap. Bruegel’s assessment suggests that, to compensate for this deficit, Europe would need to create approximately 50 new brigades, each consisting of thousands of soldiers, to effectively bolster its defense capabilities.
In 2014, the NATO countries agreed on a defense spending target of 2% of each member state’s GDP. That year, only three members met the target, but by 2024, 23 out of 32 members were set to meet it. Although the UK announced a defense spending increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and Germany’s prospective future Chancellor Friedrich Merz plans to allocate at least 84 billion USD annually for defense, this will still not be enough. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Russia’s military spending is now higher than Europe’s total defense spending, having increased by approximately 41% and now accounting for 6.7% of GDP. Bruegel estimates that European states will need an additional 250 billion euros annually to defend their territories without U.S. assistance, which would require each state to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP. Under the “European rearmament” plan, there is an expectation of mobilizing 800 billion euros, but whether this is realistic has yet to be ascertained.
It is important to note that Europe is a union of states, each with different priorities, capabilities, and interests. As such, reaching an agreement on a joint European security strategy will be difficult. If European security becomes autonomous, it will initially lose the strong deterrent effect provided by NATO’s Article 5, which has historically ensured valuable collective defense. Additionally, no European country’s defense capabilities matches the scale or technological advancement of the United States. Even with increased defense spending, Europe would still be dependent on U.S. military assets and technology, and would likely need to purchase weapons from the U.S.. “American backing” is well understood in Europe, as evidenced by European leaders subtly indicating to Zelensky that the long-term path to peace runs through the White House. This message is reflected in Zelensky’s changed position and his return to the table to sign an energy agreement.
The Possibility of Europe Replacing America
Europe has a deficit of 300,000 soldiers and two possible solutions: securing external assistance or enhancing military coordination within its own ranks. Individual efforts to deter Russia will be ineffective. Europe will need at least 1,400 tanks, 2,000 combat vehicles, and 7,000 artillery pieces to prevent a rapid breakthrough by Russia in the Baltic region. This exceeds the combined number of such weapons in the military forces of France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Additionally, Europe will need to improve aviation, transport, missile, unmanned combat operations, communication and intelligence capabilities, and will be required to retrain personnel. Further, production across Europe will need to increase. According to Bruegel’s data, military equipment expenditures currently amount to about 0.7% of GDP, which is insufficient. As mentioned earlier, European states will need to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP to fill the fiscal deficit.
Regarding the assistance provided to Ukraine, European military aid packages, which have been valued between 6-10 billion euros, are expected to increase to at least 20 billion euros following the latest U.S. moves, EU diplomats say. The Kiel Institute notes that Europe’s reliance on U.S. military equipment is most pronounced in three key areas: missile artillery (HIMARS), howitzer artillery shells, and long-range air defense systems (Patriot). To replace these, Europe would have to rely on the international market, such as South Korea (K239 Chunmoo) or Israel (PULS). Europe could also adopt the “Danish model” and produce military equipment in Ukraine, particularly drones, for which the country has already built an exceptionally innovative and productive industry.
The main challenge for Europe will be in the intelligence domain, as the Kiel Institute notes that the U.S. currently has no competition in this regard. U.S. intelligence became an essential part of Ukraine’s defense after Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014. Since then, the U.S. has been supplying Ukraine with a steady stream of electronic, satellite, and human intelligence, significantly enhancing Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Without this intelligence support, Ukraine would likely face more airstrikes and heavier military and civilian casualties due to fewer warnings. If Europe attempts to replace the U.S. in the intelligence domain, it will require increased funding from the UK and EU countries. It will also necessitate a stronger focus on coordinated efforts and overcoming legal limitations within Europe regarding collective security. Achieving this will require more trust and political will. While individual European states possess intelligence expertise, initial efforts to share information and collaborate will be relatively slow and likely less effective.
Summary
Trump’s rhetoric is essentially “forcing” Europe to take more responsibility for defending Ukraine and ensuring its own security. It is hard to predict whether the U.S. will eventually stop prioritizing European security altogether. If that happens, Europe is currently unprepared to defend itself independently. Although defense spending is on the rise, this alone will not guarantee Europe’s military autonomy. Even with increased military production, certain weapons will still need to be purchased from the U.S., South Korea or Israel. One of Europe’s biggest challenges will be intelligence, an area where the U.S. remains unparalleled. In addition, coordination between European nations will pose a significant hurdle, as Europe consists of several dozen countries, unlike the U.S., where joint action is more streamlined.
What can be stated with certainty is that Trump’s statements are pushing Europe to take a more active role in defense. While Trump’s interest may not lie in securing the safety of others, he is clearly interested in Ukraine’s natural resources. This alone means that a U.S. presence in Ukraine will help deter threats from Russia. Europe must use this time wisely, as much will depend on political will and mutual trust. Ultimately, it remains to be seen how successfully Europe can achieve “unity in diversity” in terms of defense and security.
