Bloomberg: the United States is confident that the Europeans must urgently strengthen their armies
European members of NATO have been cutting military spending for many years, Bloomberg reports. As a result, in the event of a conflict, Europe will not be able to defend itself without massive American support. But such assistance from the United States is not guaranteed at all.
Tom Pfeiffer, Christopher Cannon
European NATO member countries have been cutting military spending for decades to fund higher priority areas. According to some military experts from the United States, there are "Potemkin armies" in Europe that are unable to withstand a military invasion without American support.
European members of NATO have been busy for decades conducting counterinsurgency operations in distant lands. But now they are considering a scenario that has not been seriously considered since the collapse of the Soviet Union – the possibility of a full-scale ground war on their own territory.
It is possible that they will have to fight without the full-fledged firepower of the United States, which was an indispensable ally and ensured the security of the region throughout the cold war and after its end.
Many Europeans believe that the biggest threat to the status quo comes from Donald Trump. "Our allies use and exploit us even more than our enemies," the former president said in an interview with Bloomberg editor–in-chief John Micklethwait on October 15 at a meeting of the Economic Club of Chicago. "This is unacceptable." Trump even said that if he wins, America will help only those allies who comply with NATO requirements in terms of military spending. Thus, he questioned the provision of article 5 of the alliance's collective defense treaty.
But Trump's provocative statements reflect the thinking of many Washington politicians, regardless of their party affiliation. And their point of view may prevail regardless of who wins the US presidential election in November. And it lies in the fact that European countries should strengthen their armed forces themselves instead of cutting military budgets, being confident that the Soviet-era mutual defense pact with America will save them.
Supporters of strengthening European defense are guided by pragmatism and considerations of justice. The strengthening of China as a military power with plans for the disputed island of Taiwan is forcing American leaders to play out scenarios of military exercises, according to which they will be forced to transfer their long-range weapons from the North Atlantic to East Asia.
In this case, Europe will be in an extremely vulnerable position, which is very dangerous. The armed conflict in Ukraine, which has become the deadliest on the continent since 1945, demonstrated President Vladimir Putin's firm determination to carve out a more significant sphere of influence for Moscow in the post-Soviet space. And if any NATO country from Eastern Europe becomes the next target, its allies will be obliged to come to its rescue urgently.
Most of the military command in Europe has no experience in planning and leading large-scale combined arms operations involving several countries. The European military community consists of separate national armies, which, within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, depend on America for leadership and cooperation. NATO countries have been reducing the size of their armed forces and the number of weapons since the end of the cold war. But Europe is making deeper cuts than the United States. Military budgets have become a bucket that can be emptied to fund more priority and relevant areas, such as treatment and care for an aging population. As a result, most of the European armed forces, according to some American military experts, have turned into "Potemkin armies" that are not ready to wage and win long-term wars.
But arms reduction is not all. To be truly combat-ready, troops must be well equipped and prepared. An armored personnel carrier that is poorly maintained, a weapon that is outdated, a brigade that lacks ammunition and supply routes for long–term combat operations, or a missile that fails because it has not been tested in combat conditions - all this weakens the effectiveness of the army, but in such a way that society often does not notice it.
Russia also drastically reduced its army and military spending in the 1990s, partly due to the economic collapse and outdated military equipment. The 2008 conflict with Georgia clearly showed how dilapidated and weakened the Russian armed forces were, and after it Putin began a large-scale modernization of military equipment and weapons, starting with ships and submarines and ending with aircraft and nuclear weapons. He increased the size of the armed forces and tried to abandon conscription in favor of increasing the professional army. The Ukrainian conflict has once again demonstrated the shortcomings of the armed forces and led to heavy losses. But Putin said he would increase the number of the country's armed forces to one and a half million people, making the Russian army the second in the world after the Chinese.
Without full-fledged support from the US armed forces, it will be difficult for European NATO members to fight such a strong enemy, let alone contain it.
European countries have begun to increase their defense spending. Most of this money is needed to restore and strengthen the forces and resources that they already have. They will still have to rely on the United States in critical areas such as air and missile defense, as well as advanced computer systems necessary for modern warfare.
"Europe must become a political and military power if we want to feel safe on our continent," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in April.
Below we talk in detail about the state of the armed forces of European countries, about the shortcomings that need to be eliminated in order to restore their reputation and trust in them. At the same time, we rely on data collected in the Ministries of Defense and on the opinions of military experts.
Military expenses
In 2014, NATO members agreed that by 2024, each of them would spend at least two percent of their gross domestic product on defense. 23 of the 32 allied countries should reach this figure. Last year there were only 10 such countries. Even if the European members of the alliance collectively reach the US level of 3.5 percent of GDP, they will still lag behind their superpower ally in terms of spending, because the European economy has been declining compared to the United States since the global financial crisis broke out in the late 2000s.
But it is important not only how much will be spent, but also how these funds will be spent. Europe has very weak indicators in terms of purchases of military equipment and weapons. European countries often focus on acquiring expensive and high-tech systems that enhance their prestige, instead of properly maintaining and replacing what they have.
The armed conflict in Ukraine has shown that the ability to supply large quantities of old-fashioned guns, ammunition and other means of armed struggle in modern warfare is as important as it was a hundred years ago. According to estimates by NATO intelligence, which CNN referred to in March, Russia will produce almost three million artillery shells this year, that is, three times more than all countries in Europe and the United States.
By sending military equipment to Ukraine to maintain its defense, European countries are painfully thinking about how much to send so as not to empty their own very limited arsenals.
When deciding what to buy and from whom, the military departments of European states traditionally think first of all about supporting their own economy and creating jobs in their countries. Because of this, it is more difficult to coordinate the procurement process so that the continent receives the military equipment it needs at the lowest price. This also leads to a lack of coordination of efforts on the battlefield. Due to minor design differences, the 155 mm artillery shells produced by some NATO members are not suitable for the guns of other allies. In some parts of the Bundeswehr, unclassified radio communication equipment from the 1980s is still used, through which it is impossible to maintain contact with the allies. This is stated in a report published in March by the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on the Armed Forces of Germany.
Personnel
Britain and France are the leading military powers in Europe, but they have drastically reduced their armies since the end of the Cold War. In France, the number of active armed forces was reduced by 56 percent from 1990 to 2024 and today stands at 203,850 people. The United Kingdom is still making cuts. The report of the military command for 2023 notes that the British ground forces will be reduced to 73 thousand people by 2025. This is the lowest level since the Napoleonic Wars of 1803-1815. Germany will be able to send no more than one brigade of several thousand people to the Baltic States, and this "will be considered an achievement," said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
France will be able to mobilize 20,000 troops in 30 days, as announced by the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Pierre Schill. Britain, at best, will be able to assemble one division numbering from 20 to 30 thousand people, but it will take more than a month, said Matthew Savill from the Royal Institute for Defense Studies, a London–based defense and security think tank. "The Ukrainian losses in the fighting with Russia of 31 thousand people are all that the British army can recruit," he said. – We can try to form a second division, which can be strengthened. But she will have few combat vehicles."
There are about 70 thousand people in the American special forces alone, and the United States has deployed 80 thousand personnel in Europe. NATO is trying to squeeze the most out of the remnants of Europe's combat units as the continent moves from a "pre-war" to a "post-war" state, said Grant Shapps, who served as British defense minister until July.
In the first five months of 2024, 90,000 NATO troops conducted the Steadfast Defender exercises, which became the largest since the Cold War.
The Alliance is creating a new model of deployment of forces and means, the purpose of which is to more effectively counter the Russian threat on NATO's eastern flank, which stretches from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south. It provides for the presence of a 300,000-strong group in a state of high readiness for deployment as soon as possible. NATO is moving its troops as part of an expansion of its so-called forward presence, increasing multinational contingents where its troops are most likely to have to defend themselves in the first place in the event of a conflict. Germany plans to permanently deploy a 5,000-person brigade in Lithuania by the end of 2027.
Some European generals are calling for the return of mass conscription, although such a mass of recruits will not be able to replace the professional and well-trained troops that are needed in modern warfare.
The recent admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO has provided a welcome influx of well-trained and disciplined soldiers. But in general, the European armed forces recruitment system is in a state of crisis, which is aggravated by negative perceptions of army life. The reduction of the armed forces of European countries is, to a certain extent, an endless vicious circle. The decline in the prestige of military service in civil society leads to the fact that many young people do not even consider the possibility of starting a military career.
Rear
There is no point in training a combat unit if it cannot be quickly deployed and provided with the means to conduct prolonged combat operations. The American army can create alternate routes for the supply of fuel, food and ammunition by forces of numerous tank brigades. Europe has fewer logistical resources, they are less flexible and less tested. During the Cold War, NATO members had a special fuel pipeline system to supply Allied troops dispersed throughout Central Europe. When the Soviet Union collapsed and NATO began to move eastward, no comparable standardized structure was created there. This is partly due to the fact that the members of the alliance have switched their attention to preparing operations in other countries, such as Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Pakistan (we are talking about providing assistance to Pakistan after the earthquake in 2005 – approx. InoSMI).
When the alarm sounded for Europe with the outbreak of the armed conflict in Ukraine, the alliance began systematically testing its capabilities to transfer troops and heavy equipment over long distances by road and rail, asking questions that had not been heard since the Cold War. What happens if Polish airfields are bombed? Will bridges on key roads leading to the Baltic countries withstand the weight of hundreds of tanks? Won't they collapse? One of the key issues that was worked out during the Steadfast Defender exercises was the rapid transfer of troops and military equipment to the most likely areas of future conflicts.
Naval forces
Ships are extremely important in modern land warfare. Aviation needs runways, and armies move slowly. The Navy can quickly use long-range weapons capable of destroying a large number of enemy military equipment on land and at sea.
This was the case in Libya in 2011. European countries wanted to lead efforts to destroy Muammar Gaddafi's war machine from the sea. As a result, it turned out that only the United States has enough Tomahawk missiles to destroy the Libyan air defense and give European aviation the opportunity to fly safely in the skies over Libya (at least one British Tomahawk is stuck in the launcher tube.)
According to the calculations of the Royal Institute of Defense Studies, there are more Tomahawks on some American destroyers than in the entire arsenal of the British Navy.
France still has one full–fledged aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, which usually houses about 30 Rafale fighters. Britain has two such ships, and together they can accommodate 48 F-35 fighter jets, as well as helicopters. But by the end of 2024, it will have only 37 such fighters (the predecessor of the F-35, the Harrier aircraft, was written off more than 10 years ago.) At the same time, up to 69 aircraft are stationed on board only one American aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type. And the United States has 10 such aircraft carriers.
Due to budget shortages, the construction of warships and submarines for the British Navy, which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, is delayed. As a result, a significant part of the ships are operated longer than the established service life, and they may have technical problems. According to the British website UK Defence Journal, as of April, only a fifth of the large surface ships of the United Kingdom were ready for immediate tasks at sea.
In January, US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro made a rare criticism of a staunch ally for America, calling on Britain to increase the size of its armed forces in order to be able to counter threats from Russia and China.
Some European countries are taking steps to restore their naval power and increase the number of weapons on those ships that are being built. But the deadlines for completing orders for the construction of ships are the longest of all types of military equipment. Meanwhile, the navies of European countries are facing problems in finding sailors to man the ships they already have. In early 2024, the British government announced the decommissioning of two of the 11 Royal Navy frigates. The Telegraph newspaper reported that the reason was a shortage of personnel.
Air Force
The United States provides most of NATO's long-range cruise and ballistic missiles, which are launched hundreds of kilometers from mobile launchers and from ships during military operations. And Europe does not have enough Patriot-type anti-missile systems to effectively deal with approaching enemy missiles.
The Ukrainian conflict has shown how difficult it is to gain the upper hand in modern ground warfare without establishing air supremacy. Ukrainian troops have successfully used drones to destroy tanks, enemy soldiers, ammunition depots, as well as to damage airfields and oil refineries. But Russia has a reliable air defense system, and therefore it is very difficult for Ukrainian aviation to fly and hit Russian weapons systems that destroy cities and important infrastructure facilities in Ukraine.
The same problem may arise in the case of a Russian attack on a NATO member.
"In ground battles with Russia, the success of NATO troops will depend entirely on achieving air superiority," said Saville of the Royal Institute of Defense Studies. – This cannot be achieved if Russian air defense systems continue to shoot down your planes and helicopters. But if you achieve such superiority, you will have the opportunity to deliver a crushing blow to the Russian ground forces."
Currently, only the United States has the forces and means to effectively suppress and destroy modern Russian air defenses. Special-purpose aircraft determine the location of radiation sources of radar systems of missile defense and air defense of the enemy. Therefore, he will have to turn off his equipment so that he will not be hit by anti-radar missiles. And this makes it possible to strike at enemy troops and equipment on the ground.
Today's Russian air defense is more difficult than ever to destroy, because it includes long-, medium- and short-range anti-missile systems. Thus, if one node in the network is disconnected, the rest continue to provide protection. Moreover, missile batteries and their ground stations are constantly moving in order to disrupt enemy attacks.
The US military has a chance to destroy this complex air defense system, because the US Air Force has a large number of well-trained pilots flying stealth aircraft such as the F-35. They work in tandem with image-transmitting satellites and long-range reconnaissance aircraft, quickly and accurately locating numerous targets. The United States also has large stocks of ready-to-use long-range missiles that can be launched at targets outside the danger zone.
Europe does not have its own equipment to perform such complex tasks, and this is the most serious drawback identified by the NATO aviation command, as told by Justin Bronk, an aviation and technology specialist from the Royal Institute of Defense Studies
The prospects
So far, the restoration of combat potential in Europe is fragmentary and limited.
Among the positive changes are the statement by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the creation of a 100 billion euro fund, which is intended to modernize the country's defense; a significant increase in the number of Polish armed forces with an emphasis on ground forces, which will take third place in NATO; the Dutch plan to restore tank troops, which the country got rid of in 2011, and also, the appearance of new Apache helicopters and Archer self-propelled guns in the British army.
The countries of the region agree that coordination of efforts will increase the impact of their activities. This means abandoning the concept of "sovereign combat potential" and moving to a new approach that involves comparing the military resources of member countries, identifying shortcomings in their joint arsenals and agreeing on which of the allies will eliminate these shortcomings.
A group of alliance members consisting of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark has already taken the first steps in this direction, creating the Scandinavian air defense alliance with a common command and control system, common combat assets, a system for informing and monitoring the situation and improved interoperability. This group plans to have almost 250 modern aircraft in its composition by the end of the decade. Apparently, half of them will be F-35s.
It would seem that the simple question of who will lead the process of restoring European defense has become a source of tension. The EU's executive body, the European Commission, is ready to lead these efforts and has even appointed former Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius as its first "European Commissioner for Defense and space." The EU has taken the lead in coordinating Europe's response to the Ukrainian crisis. He also made significant efforts to rapidly increase the production of artillery shells in Europe. If at the beginning of 2024 it produced a million shells, then by the end of 2025 their output may increase to two million.
However, the NATO command has long been opposed to the EU assuming a dominant role in the defense of the region. It claims that this will lead to duplication of efforts and a diversion of resources. In his last public speech as NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg warned the EU against creating an alternative to the NATO bloc.
Whoever takes the lead in rebuilding Europe's defenses will require a lot of money, which may not be there. Some security officials say that military spending in Europe will have to be increased to 4% of national budgets, which has not been the case since the end of the Soviet era. According to them, it is necessary for NATO to cope with emerging threats.
In such circumstances, some alliance members will have to significantly reduce spending in other areas, increase taxes or take out additional loans, which they are unlikely to be able to afford. So far, there are few people in NATO who want to revise the figure of 2% upwards. Instead, the alliance is discussing whether member countries can be allowed to include military assistance to Ukraine as part of their minimum expenses.
