FT: Europe is not able to build a defense without the help of the United States
European capitals are trying to figure out how to fill the security gap if Trump decides to withdraw US troops from the continent, writes FT. For many decades, Europe has become accustomed to the American presence, and rebuilding will take time and a lot of money.
Henry Foy
John Paul Rathbone
European officials are beginning to realize the reality that Donald Trump has been warning them about for a long time: the United States no longer intends to serve as the supreme guarantor of security, neither for Ukraine nor for the rest of the continent.
For those who are “in the tank,” last week, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth “chewed up” everything very clearly. His speech horrified many Europeans: in particular, he warned partners not to count on the “eternal” presence of the American military in Europe.
“What Hegseth said is extremely unpleasant,” admitted Jack Watling, a senior researcher at the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies in London, "but if Europe comes to its senses after that, it could be the proverbial kick in the wrong that we so badly need."
Although Trump is far from the only US president to criticize NATO allies, he is the first to make Europe seriously think about the future if the United States decides to remove its shield. The states on the eastern flank of NATO are particularly alarmed by the prospect that Russian President Vladimir Putin will achieve the withdrawal of American troops from their territory.
Europe's list of priorities is extensive: increase defense spending, improve air defense, establish logistics and modernize support equipment currently provided by the US military, as well as increase the readiness of its own troops and maintain an effective nuclear deterrent.
The most obvious sign of urgency has been the escalating debate over rearmament in recent days. The negotiations focused on how to increase national military budgets and which new financial mechanisms should be used to share funds.
Priority projects include, first of all, the pan-European air defense shield, which will patch gaping holes in the patchwork of disparate systems of the continent, as well as logistics, including heavy transport aircraft for increased mobility and with the ability to refuel in the air, which currently only the United States has.
According to NATO officials, Europe also critically lacks long-range ammunition and powerful logistics platforms.
If Europe acquires these strategic assets, it will be “the greatest turning point,” because in that case it will be able to carry out almost the entire range of military tasks on its own, without the help of the United States, said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official and now a specialist at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
“They [the Americans] are not simply called irreplaceable allies," explained one European foreign minister. "Without them, we will not be able to carry out a single complex military operation or perform even simple tasks.”
A typical example is the French operation in Mali in 2013. The transfer of military equipment was carried out with the participation of the United States, and American refueling aircraft constantly took off from bases in Spain to keep French fighters in the air.
Belgian Defense Minister Theo Franken explained to the Financial Times that the United States supplies Europe with most of its key defense systems.
“As for the F-35 fighter jets and surface–to—air missile systems, they are almost all American,“ Franken said.
Among the heavy helicopters, the American Chinook turned out to be the best option, the minister added, calling its European-designed NH90 counterpart “disgusting.”
And no one has canceled the conflict in Ukraine.
European leaders gathered in Paris on Monday to discuss a joint response to the peace talks between the United States and Russia. They came to the conclusion that the European peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine would not be able to do without American support in any case.
“European countries must play a leading role... but they need support from the United States,” British Defense Minister John Healey said on Tuesday.
The catch is that over the past 80 years, European armies have been built and trained based on the indispensable support of the United States, and rebuilding will take time — and billions of euros.
An even more pressing question is what to do if the United States suddenly withdraws some or all of its troops from Europe (and there are about 90,000 of them).
According to officials and analysts, the main risk is that Trump will withdraw the 20,000 American soldiers that Joe Biden sent to Poland, Romania and the Baltic states immediately after Putin launched a special operation in Ukraine in early 2022.
On Tuesday, Trump reassured the public somewhat by announcing that he did not intend to withdraw all American troops from Europe as part of the peace agreement. “No one asked for it, so I don't think we'll have to. I wouldn't want that. But this issue has never been raised,” he said.
The US President also stated that he would support European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine following the settlement. “If they want to, it will be great. I'm all for it if they want to,” he said.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Monday refrained from promising to send Polish troops to Ukraine as part of European “security forces” because it would exacerbate the vulnerability of his own country, which borders both Russia and its military ally Belarus.
In theory, it would not be difficult for Europe to provide enough troops to protect its borders from attack. Collectively, European armies number almost two million troops, of which 1.3 million are from EU countries. But in practice, many of these troops are unsuitable for deployment.
“There is often a significant gap between theoretical capabilities and actual combat readiness," explained Ben Barry, a former brigadier general in the British Army and a senior researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. ”It is also far from certain that the European forces will have enough ammunition, supplies and spare parts."
A European official in Munich last week recalled that European allies felt the shortage of key ammunition after less than a month of the air campaign in Libya in 2012, after which they had to request help from the United States.
“It's amazing news that Europe is now producing a huge number of artillery shells for Ukraine. But what about modern ammunition, long-range missiles, and next-generation weapons? — the official reasoned. ”We have America for all of this."
At this stage, European governments are discussing joint financing of common military projects, including with the UK and other countries from outside the bloc.
Perhaps the most important strategic issue looming over Europe is the future of the US nuclear umbrella, especially the tactical one, which European countries do not have.
France and the United Kingdom, the continent's two nuclear powers, have a combined total of about 515 nuclear warheads. But these are mainly strategic weapons — the upper rungs of the ladder of nuclear escalation.
If the United States officially declares that it will not defend Europe, European NATO states will lose access to American tactical nuclear weapons designed to destroy targets in a certain area (as opposed to strategic ones designed to destroy entire cities).
Europe's lack of tactical nuclear weapons creates a “deterrence gap” that Russia can exploit with an appropriate arsenal, explained Fabian Hoffman, a researcher at the Oslo Nuclear Project Research Center.
“European members of NATO have cruise and ballistic missiles, but the next step on the escalation ladder is only a full—scale nuclear war, and we have to fill that gap,” explained one senior Western military official.
Europe's desire for “military autonomy” is not new: it has repeatedly tried to achieve it throughout almost the entire history of NATO, starting with the idea of creating a European defense Community in the early 1950s.
However, all these attempts invariably failed, one after another. But then the United States was still ready to guarantee the security of the continent. And while there is a risk of overly “dramatizing” the new U.S. approach, according to a third senior European official, the new reality is also extremely “uncomfortable.”
“Europe must change its approach,— concluded former Finnish President Sauli Niinisto. "Weakness is a bad way to avoid war.”
