Since Donald Trump's return to the White House, the pressing question has emerged: can European NATO countries defend themselves against a Russian attack without the support of the U.S. military?
This concern is not unfounded. During his first term, Trump implicitly threatened to withdraw from NATO, and the current ambiguous signals from Washington have sparked panic among military officials, politicians, and experts across Europe. 80 years of European reliance on the superior military and nuclear power of the United States seems increasingly precarious. With 100,000 American troops stationed on the European continent, supported by state-of-the-art aircraft and naval power, the assurance of American military backing during any Russian invasion has been taken for granted. Yet this level of confidence is now being questioned, especially as historical evidence shows Russia's willingness to engage militarily, as seen with the annexation of parts of Georgia and Ukraine.
Without the American protective umbrella, many European capitals are beginning to come to grips with the potential reality of Russian aggression. Although some still believe NATO could sustain deterrent capabilities even without U.S. backing, the risks remain unnervingly high. Military expert Rob de Wijk raises concerns about the possibility of NATO collapsing, especially under the leadership style of Trump.
A significant challenge emerges when contemplating the military capabilities of Europe. The Brussels-based think tank, Bruegel, has conducted research alongside its researchers, including Alexandr Burilkov, to examine Europe’s defense capabilities amid the threat of prolonged conflict—similar to the current situation in Ukraine. Their conclusion was unequivocal: Europe is currently not equipped to defend itself. Burilkov illustrated the imbalance by noting how Russia is producing about 1,500 tanks annually, whereas Germany ordered 105 Leopard tanks, which won’t come until 2030.
And as war rages on, Europe's military manufacturing falls dangerously short. While the collective forces of the 28 NATO countries appear strong on paper, they are only effective under U.S. command, which provides immense strategic advantages, including intelligence, satellite access, and logistical support. Should the Americans withdraw, Europe would face the stark reality of 28 separate armies with individual shortcomings, making coherent defense almost impossible.
Burilkov pointed to what could be termed 'the gap' created by American withdrawal, which must be filled to maintain strength against potential aggressors. It is estimated Europe needs to raise approximately 300,000 troops equipped with heavy weapons and considerable munitions to replace the American presence. Despite the theoretical strength of these European forces, they lack coherence and unified command structures.
Drawing on NATO’s experience and expenditures, military analysts opined on the dire necessity for increased defense budgets across the continent. While France and the United Kingdom collectively possess around 500 nuclear weapons, those arsenals are suited for mass destruction, not battlefield deployment. The absence of tactical nuclear weapons adds another layer of vulnerability to European security.
Despite the current geopolitical instability, there might be hope. Discussions about strengthening European military unity and capabilities are building momentum. With German Chancellor Friedrich Merz now potentially leading Germany, there could be renewed energy behind efforts to consolidate European forces, which might allow for greater strategic independence from the U.S.
Simultaneously, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent announcement of the largest defense spending increase since the Cold War signals another push for enhanced capability. Starmer, though representing the UK's separate identity post-Brexit, is fostering closer ties with EU leaders, indicating solidarity among European nations, even if the defense situations vary greatly.
While it is commendable for EU leaders to cluster around issues of defense and security, there remains significant divergence among member nations, particularly with Hungary and Italy, which have been perceived as endorsing Trump’s ideologies around immigration and nationalism. Nonetheless, Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has been staunchly supportive of Ukraine and NATO.
Trump's international politics pivot toward large power blocs serve to exclude nations outside these coalitions, exposing those countries to vulnerabilities. The reemergence of imperialism necessitates greater EU self-sufficiency than ever before.
Considering all these realities, the current Dutch government grappling with its EU stance must acknowledge the pressing need for shared burdens amid geopolitical strife, especially with the looming threat of Russia and the potential abandonment of Western security guarantees. The time has come for Europe to act decisively to craft its own defense strategy, rather than rely on the increasingly uncertain U.S. partnership.
The question of whether the U.S. will remain committed or if it will retreat from its European responsibilities weighs heavily on European leaders' decisions. Without rapid action to increase military production, expand troop numbers, and develop cohesive command structures, the scenario for Europe could become perilous.
Only through immediate and unified efforts can Europe aspire to build defenses capable of withstanding future threats and bolster its standing not just within the continent but also on the global stage. Only time will tell whether these efforts can materialize effectively to establish true independence from U.S. military support.