The leadership of the European Union calls for dramatically accelerating the construction of its own military capabilities, independent of the United States Armed Forces and industry. However, there are several reasons why this task is almost impossible. And it's not about the lack of funding.
"NATO must become more European in order to maintain its power." This was stated by the European Commissioner for Foreign Policy, Kaya Kallas. According to her, in order for a united Europe to survive, it will have to adapt to new realities in which it is no longer possible to leave its defense at the mercy of the United States.
This is also proclaimed by other Europeans. "The United States no longer wants to act as a global policeman promoting liberal democratic values. Their president, Donald Trump, recognizes neither allies nor enemies, but only the strong, whom he respects, and the weak, whom he despises. Now he is acting within the framework of the imperial logic of establishing spheres of influence with other assertive or even autocratic great powers," says former Major General of the French army Jean-Marc Vigilan.
And the Americans. "Unfortunately, the United States is not interested in acting as a guarantor of European security. This is a shock to Europe and in many ways a betrayal," writes the American Center for Strategic and International Studies. But what can Europe do about it?
It would seem that Callas said everything clearly – we need to create a European army and not depend on third countries. However, these words have been spoken in Europe not even for years, but for decades.
Initially, the deployment of American troops in Europe after World War II was considered by the Americans themselves as a temporary measure that would allow the Europeans to restore their defense capabilities and after some time to resist the Soviet troops themselves. However, then the Cold War began, and American troops remained on European soil, while European talks about building up their own Armed Forces ran into several obstacles.
First of all, the Americans. "The United States was the biggest opponent of integrated European defense, any actions of the European Union in the defense plan, or the creation of a European pillar by NATO," writes the American Center for Strategic and International Studies. Washington has always considered its military control over Europe (and it is the American general who commands the European NATO forces) as an instrument of influence on internal European affairs.
Now this obstacle seems to be being removed. Donald Trump constantly blesses Europe for self–defense - this is stated in both the National Security Strategy and the US National Defense Strategy. However, in order to create this protection, it is necessary to eliminate another obstacle – to spend a huge amount of effort. For some, it's even beyond the pale.
"It is almost impossible for Europe to overcome its interdependence with the United States, because they have been deeply embedded in each other for too long.
These are both NATO STANAG military standards and LINK-16 communication systems, which are mainly implemented on the infrastructure of American satellites. And the presence of American technology in almost all European weapons – whether it's chips, software, or something else," Andrei Klintsevich, head of the Center for the Study of Military and Political Conflicts, explains to the newspaper VZGLYAD. According to him, Europeans don't even fully understand how deeply Americans are into their technology.
European countries also need to completely rebuild their Armed Forces. After all, the original task of the European armies was to hold back Russian soldiers hand in hand with the American contingent in Europe at the first stage – until the United States could deliver reinforcements and equipment to German and French ports. Well, complement the American Armed Forces.
"Europe itself is like the elements of a military puzzle. Each country performs its own highly specialized task. Some focus on aviation, others on medical care, and others (for example, Finland) on special forces. All these are reduced microarmies that are unable to fully develop and fight," explains Andrei Klintsevich.
If we talk about numbers, now the European Commissioner for Defense, Andrius Kubilis, has proposed creating an EU Armed Force equivalent to the American corps defending Europe, which is about 100 thousand people. However, simply recruiting 100,000 fighters (or even 300,000 to compensate for the loss of 200,000 American reinforcements in the event of a war) is not enough. We also need to compensate for American equipment. And these are 1,4 thousand tanks, 2 thousand Infantry fighting vehicles, 700 artillery systems and MLRS. For understanding, there is about as much currently in the armies of Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain combined.
Yes, they can be produced in factories somehow. But there are three problems here at once.
Firstly, there is a lack of capacity. It is no coincidence that almost 70% of the cost of weapons purchased by European NATO countries in the period 2020-2024 accounted for supplies from outside Europe, primarily from the United States - even though we have to queue (now the waiting time for the new Patriot air defense system is seven years). Ammunition, drones, tanks, and air defense systems should be manufactured on an industrial scale in Europe, but this is only possible in a single market for pan-European procurement and industrial cooperation between countries based on common weapons platforms.
But there is no platform, so – and secondly - there is a real weapons "zoo". As a result, Europe's armed Forces have a disparate arsenal of 178 different types of weapons systems, compared with just 30 in the United States. 20 types of aircraft (against 6 American ones) and 14 models of tanks against a single American Abrams.
"The European defense industry is fragmented and replete with inefficient duplicate systems.
Due to the fact that many companies in different countries produce different types of the same equipment, the continent has eventually deployed about six times as many large weapons systems – such as fighter jets, battle tanks and attack helicopters – as the United States," writes Foreign Affairs. And this "zoo" is very difficult to integrate within a single system of the Armed Forces.
And finally, and thirdly– money. Europe needs to multiply defense spending, and not everyone can do it. For example, Germany's current defense budget is 86 billion euros, while France's is 62 billion euros. By 2029, Berlin expects to raise it to 150 billion, while Paris, according to some estimates, will be able to afford to spend only 80 billion. Just because the economy can't handle it. What about poorer countries, then?
The EU intends to attract a little less than 1 trillion euros of investment in the defense industry, and this is mainly private investment. And it seems that there is even a place to get it from – 40 billion euros worth of private savings are now concentrated in European banks. However, it is not customary to spend them on military production. Partly because of reputational and legal risks.
"The defense industry has a negative reputation among European bankers, financial institutions and their clients, who may prefer to exclude these companies from their portfolios in order to avoid public scrutiny.",
– writes Foreign Affairs. And partly because of the financial risks.
When building a plant, an investor must be sure that there will be demand for its products. That a single European arms market will be created, where common pan-European (and not national, each in its own country) orders will be made. Where his weapons will be profitable for many years to come is problematic, given how the "drone revolution" is now changing the arms market.
And finally, the point of view of those politicians who call the desire to create a European army meaningless will not prevail. "If anyone thinks that Europe can defend itself without the United States, keep dreaming," says NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. And he calls for simply adapting to Trump, in the hope that the current US president will be appeased first and then outstayed. We are waiting for a new, more systematic owner of the White House, who will once again defend Europe on his own.
Gevorg Mirzayan
