| ![Free ride.mp4]() |
The conversation explores Europe's conflicted stance on the war in Ukraine and the deeper implications of U.S. support, exposing a range of contradictions in European strategy, political motives, and defense readiness. Key Points:Europe's Contradictory Behavior:Europe previously thrived on cheap Russian energy and U.S. military protection, allowing it to invest heavily in domestic welfare rather than defense. While the Ukraine war forced Europe to cut some energy ties with Russia, it still maintains significant economic links, especially in energy and trade—showing reluctance to bear real costs despite its rhetoric that the war is “existential.” For example, European limits on Ukrainian agricultural imports to protect domestic farmers contradict claims of full solidarity with Ukraine.
The ‘Existential Threat’ Narrative:If Europe truly believed Ukraine's fall would threaten its own security, it would act more decisively—cutting all economic ties with Russia and massively boosting defense spending. Instead, most countries are still underinvesting in defense and remain heavily dependent on U.S. military support, undermining the claim of existential urgency.
Motives Behind European Actions:Jennifer suggests Europe is inflating the Ukraine threat to keep the U.S. deeply engaged in European security via NATO. The recent munitions deal and Trump’s shift to supporting Ukraine are seen as strategic European victories, making it politically harder for the U.S. to withdraw. Despite talking about raising defense spending (even to 5% of GDP), Europe appears to be stalling, hoping to outlast Trump’s term and return to "business as usual" afterward.
Diverging Views Within Europe:Countries close to Russia (like the Baltics) are more genuinely concerned than others (like France or Germany). Still, even frontline states are unlikely to face Russian invasion, making Europe's internal panic and demands somewhat exaggerated.
U.S. Stockpile Concerns & Limited Capacity:The U.S. faces serious shortages in munitions and interceptors, worsened by support to Ukraine, Israel, and efforts in the Red Sea. A 2023 study warned that the U.S. could run out of key precision munitions within a week in a major conflict like Taiwan. There are three ways Ukraine could get new weapons, each with trade-offs: Europe donates from its stockpiles and gets backfilled later. Europe pays for U.S. stock withdrawals, affecting U.S. readiness. Europe buys new production, which takes months or years to deliver.
Bottom line: none of these options can significantly change the battlefield in the short term.
Conclusion:Europe’s actions do not align with its words. Its goal appears more about locking in continued U.S. involvement than about radically shifting its own strategy. Meanwhile, U.S. support—though politically significant—risks depleting American defense readiness and offers limited short-term military impact in Ukraine. © 2025 Daniel L. Davis
P.O. Box 119, New York, NY 10019
Unsubscribe ![Get the app]() ![Start writing]()
| |