Europe’s Defenses Risk Faltering Within Weeks Without US Support (1)
2025-03-07 07:53:06.993 GMT
By Andrea Palasciano, Alberto Nardelli, Natalia Ojewska and
William Wilkes
(Bloomberg) -- A few weeks after Donald Trump’s re-election
to the White House, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk traveled
to the marshy forests near the border with Russia to showcase
one of Europe’s most ambitious defense projects.
The first section of the country’s $2.5 billion East Shield
— an 800-kilometer (500-mile) stretch of fences, concrete
barricades and anti-tank moats — was completed in late November,
and Tusk wanted to show that Poland was doing its part to secure
the continent from potential aggression from the Kremlin.
“This is an investment in peace,” the former European
Council president, who oversaw the bloc’s summits for five years
until 2019, said in late November in Dabrowka — a village near
Russia’s Kaliningrad.
But the unspoken message of the fortifications — an updated
version of France’s Maginot Line, which ultimately failed to
hold back Nazi Germany — is that Europe is vulnerable, and it
knows it.
Lacking troops, air defenses and ammunition, the
continent’s front-line defenses are only equipped to repel an
invasion from Russia for weeks at best without the US, according
to defense officials, who asked not to be identified discussing
sensitive information. Even if a complete American withdrawal is
seen as extremely remote, a reduced US presence would also have
an impact.
Within NATO, Europe is reliant on the US for
communications, intelligence and logistics as well as strategic
military leadership and firepower. Contingency planning is
ongoing for the unlikely scenario in which the US does turn its
back on the alliance and pulls all troops out of Europe.
The continent largely disarmed after the Cold War and saw
Russia as a basket case and then a trading partner. Even after
the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Europe’s leaders struggled to
pivot. It’s only in recent years that Europe’s NATO members have
come to terms with the threat posed by Moscow.
Trump’s return to the White House has heightened Europe’s
alarm. The US president has shown little concern about Russian
aggression and has decided to halt US arms supplies to Ukraine,
stopped providing some intelligence to Kyiv’s forces and
rejected American troops taking part in a mission to keep a
peace deal he’s seeking to broker with Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The continent has responded with a show of solidarity and a
massive wave of cash. The European Union plans to extend €150
billion ($160 billion) in loans and allow member states to spend
an additional €650 billion on defense. The UK plans to shift
development aid to its military, and Germany intends to break
with tradition by loosening constitutional borrowing
restrictions to rearm.
On Thursday, the EU also agreed to begin discussions on a
long-term reform of its fiscal rules to allow member states to
spend more on defense. The move came as Trump again raised
questions over joint security commitments, saying in Washington
that he would not defend “delinquent” NATO members.
Europe’s rearmament effort is expected to eventually need
hundreds of billions of euros more. But after years of
underinvestment and decades of reliance on the US, more than
money is required to shore up Europe’s security. Replacing the
array of support that the US provides — from logistics and
intelligence to weapons systems — could take more than five
years, the people said.
Read More: Trump’s Ukraine Plans Mean $3 Trillion Bill for
European Allies
Precise data on Europe’s capabilities and stockpiles are
closely held. But behind the scenes, defense officials warn that
in extreme scenarios the region’s inventories of aircraft
missiles could quickly start to run short without the US,
according to some estimates. Ammunition may run low within days
and air defenses would be unable to provide sufficient cover for
ground operations.
Despite three years of war in Europe, the continent still
lacks basics like sufficient production capacity for gunpowder.
That means gearing up mainly involves buying from the US.
Poland, which has the highest defense-spending rate in
Europe, is among the region’s largest buyers of American
military equipment, with $60 billion in orders, including Apache
helicopters, Abrams tanks and F-35 fighter jets — some of which
aren’t scheduled to be delivered until next decade. But in the
event of a full-blown war, plans would likely also include
converting industry to produce ammunition and other weapons.
The lack of as many as 100,000 combat personnel and
technicians capable of engaging in high-tech modern warfare is a
deficiency that’s especially hard for an aging continent to
address. Social tensions also need to be managed if spending is
seen as eating into pensions and welfare programs.
Germany, the EU’s most populous country and biggest
economy, had a little over 181,000 troops at the end of 2024, a
slight decrease from the previous year at a time when increases
are needed. While recruitment has intensified, it wasn’t enough
to compensate for soldiers leaving service or retiring.
That puts pressure on France and the UK, which have nuclear
weapons, to provide a deterrence. French President Emmanuel
Macron said on Wednesday that he’s prepared to enter talks to
use the country’s nuclear capabilities to defend European
allies.
Alongside Britain’s Keir Starmer, the French president has
become a key voice for Europe and has long urged allies to take
more control over the continent’s security. In a landmark speech
a few months into his first term in 2017, he advocated for a
joint intervention force and a common defense budget, but failed
to rally partners into action — often getting rebuffed by
Germany.
“We are vitally bound to the US, there is no question about
that,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys told
reporters on Monday. “It is a fairly simple and easy way to
deter Russia, to avoid bigger problems.”
The Baltic nation — a potential Kremlin target alongside
Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Poland — has been seeking to lobby
for more American troops on top of the existing 1,000 already
stationed there, a sign of Europe’s enduring reliance on the US
despite Trump’s rhetoric.
Read More: Filling the Trump-Sized Hole in Ukraine’s
Defenses Against Putin
Europe would struggle to manage a defensive operation on
its own. The US operates 17 sophisticated spy planes — packed
with equipment to detect enemy radio, radar and communications —
while the UK only has three.
Other European countries currently only operate smaller
twin-engine reconnaissance planes, according to the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Germany has
ordered three new surveillance planes from Canada’s Bombardier
Inc., but they won’t be in the air until 2028.
The dire situation has tied Europe and Ukraine together
like never before. With US support in doubt, Kyiv is especially
dependent on military and financial aid from Europe. On the
flipside, Ukraine has the largest army and hard-won expertise in
drone warfare that its allies lack.
Read More: What Trump’s Pause on Military Aid Means for
Ukraine
Europe’s security weakness has been decades in the making.
After the fall of the Iron Curtain and NATO’s expansion to the
east in the 1990s, most countries embraced the opportunity to
cut military budgets.
Over the past 30 years, core European NATO members have
reduced the number of active troops by nearly 50%. In addition
to combat-ready personnel, the shortages extend to the brain
trust of senior officers, planners and strategists.
Spread out over more than two dozen countries from Greece
to Iceland, the continent’s NATO members have about 1.5 million
active military personnel, according to data from IISS. By
comparison, Ukraine alone has 730,000.
Local obligations and social resistance further limit the
prospect for redeploying national armies to a peacekeeping
mission in Ukraine on a large scale. After an emergency summit
in London last weekend, Italy’s Premier Giorgia Meloni said
sending Italian troops to Ukraine had “never been on the
agenda.” Other leaders expressed similar sentiment.
“When peace eventually comes, the front line in Ukraine
will be unbelievably long,” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette
Frederiksen said. “The idea that there will be a single line
with European soldiers guarding every centimeter is simply not
realistic.”
European officials estimate that at least 30,000 soldiers
would be needed to monitor a peace deal in Ukraine, but that
would be difficult to muster and instead the prospective
contingent would be little more than tripwire for Russia, the
people said.
What Our Analysts Say:
“Europe could in theory step in to cover the financial gap
left by the US. The problem is not one of magnitude. Rather, the
biggest challenges would be taking decisions fast enough and
replacing US support in key tactical areas.”
— Alex Kokcharov, Bloomberg Economics analyst; Alex Isakov,
economist; and Antonio Barroso, analyst (Bloomberg subscribers
can click here for the full report)
When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in
2022, the rapid movement of troops and equipment played a
crucial role in Kyiv’s ability to mount a defense. A similar
ability to deploy forces quickly would be critical if European
nations were faced with a Russian attack.
The European Court of Auditors warned last month that
logistical obstacles could bog down defensive efforts because of
a lack of centralized oversight. Moving tanks from one member
state to another would encounter national weight regulations and
might need to take long detours because of rickety bridges,
according to a report.
The Baltics are particularly vulnerable to supply issues.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia still use Soviet gauge rails,
which means European trains can only get as far as the border
with Poland. That makes sea lanes critical for delivering
equipment and reinforcements in the event of an attack, but
resources aren’t yet in place.
Both publicly and privately, the Trump administration has
expressed commitment to NATO and a full exit is viewed by
European officials as extremely remote. Matthew Whitaker, the
US’s nominee for NATO ambassador, said during confirmation
hearings this week that the US president remains committed to
the alliance and sees his role as pushing allies to increase
their share of defense spending.
Instead, Trump is widely expected to reduce the number of
troops in Europe by over 20% and rein in contributions, the
people said. The first move would likely be the withdrawal of
the additional 20,000 soldiers that Joe Biden deployed after the
start of Russia’s invasion three years ago.
The alliance is prepared for a recalibration of US forces
away from Europe, Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, who took over as the
chair of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Military
Committee last month, told Bloomberg.
“There is a kind of imbalance, so we need to re-balance,”
the admiral said, calling the notion that Europe isn’t able to
defend itself “blasphemy.”
Given the Trump administration’s skeptical stance toward
Europe, NATO’s strategy is to keep the US at the table, even if
it’s in a reduced capacity. Secretary General Mark Rutte is seen
as a key figure to keep the transatlantic alliance together.
The former Dutch premier, who famously smoothed over an
explosive NATO summit with Trump in 2018, has engaged in intense
diplomacy, including several calls with the US president since
his inauguration in January and visiting him at his residence in
Mar-a-Lago.
Back at the Polish border with Russia, officials have
learned lessons from history and are closely coordinating with
Baltic neighbors to gird against Russia going around the
fortifications, which will also include sensors and air-defense
systems to secure against weapons that fly over a fence.
Finland and the UK are also involved, as they would be
called upon for logistics support in the event of an attack,
which Europe increasingly sees as a question of when and not if.
“Russia will be probably able to recreate its military
capabilities in a relatively short time,” Poland’s Deputy
Defense Minister Cezary Tomczyk said in an interview in Warsaw.
“Within three years, it can once again become a real threat to
the world.”
--With assistance from Andra Timu, Milda Seputyte, Julia
Janicki, Thomas Gualtieri, Slav Okov, Jan Bratanic, James Regan
and Andrea Dudik.
To contact the authors of this story:
Andrea Palasciano in Brussels at afpalasciano@bloomberg.net
Alberto Nardelli in London at anardelli@bloomberg.net
Natalia Ojewska in Warszawa at nojewska@bloomberg.net
William Wilkes in Frankfurt at wwilkes1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Chad Thomas at cthomas16@bloomberg.net
Chris Reiter