logo
Armed by America: how Europe's militaries depend on the US

Armed by America: how Europe's militaries depend on the US

The Guardian4 hours ago

European leaders will meet with Donald Trump at a Nato summit on Tuesday, as the alliance prepares to approve a significant boost to defence spending.
A new target for every member to spend 5% of GDP – more than double Nato's current benchmark – marks a major win for the US president, who has long railed against America footing the bill for Europe's security.
That concern is now increasingly mutual. European governments are pursuing an unprecedented push for military independence, amid fears the US is no longer a reliable ally.
'Don't ask America what it can do for our security. Ask yourselves what we can do for our own security,' said the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, in an address to EU lawmakers in January.
But when it comes to raw firepower, the bloc has a long way to go.
Europe's militaries still overwhelmingly rely on US-made weapons and equipment, according to Guardian analysis of stockpile data that raises doubts about ambitions for European-led rearmament.
Close to half of the fighter jets in active service across European air forces originate from the US, while American – rather than European – missile defence systems remain the most widely deployed on the continent.
American hardware also features prominently in stocks of tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery deployed by European nations.
This deep reliance on Washington for key military capabilities has been starkly exposed by recent moves from the Trump administration, prompting alarm in Brussels.
The suspension of US military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March has been a major flashpoint, as well as Trump's recent suggestion that Europe may soon be sold downgraded American fighter jets.
Yet, despite efforts to bolster homegrown defence, European states are still turning to the US to plug critical gaps.
In the past five years, the EU27, the UK, Norway and Switzerland have bought more than 15,000 missiles, 2,400 armoured vehicles and 340 aircraft from the US – far outstripping what European states buy from one another.
In some cases, EU countries are buying more weapons from suppliers such as Israel and South Korea than from their continental neighbours.
This includes nations central to European defence concerns in 2025 – Poland and the Baltic states bordering Russia.
But even among Europe's big four, only France buys more equipment from Europe than from the US. Britain, Germany and Italy still predominantly shop in Washington.
The UK is notably more pro-American than other European powers. Keir Starmer, the prime minister, described the US as the UK's 'first partner in defence' when he unveiled the conclusions of a major defence review at the start of June.
The Guardian analysis below, based on arms transfer data published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) and stockpile figures published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), reveals just how deeply embedded the US defence industry is in European armies.
Since 2020, the EU, the UK and Norway have bought a total of 26,036 missiles from other states.
Less than 10% of these missiles were part of deals between European states.
The lion's share were American missiles bought by Europe in same period.
The rest were largely from Israel, at just under 7,000, and South Korea, at 2,000.
There is a similar pattern with other weapon types – such as the armoured vehicles and aircraft purchased by Europe since 2020.
American imports top the list, followed by imports from other European states and then the rest of the world.
But US dominance in European arsenals goes beyond sheer quantity. Many of the most advanced weapons on the continent are American-made.
These include the F series of American fighter jets, which dominate Europe's air forces. The latest model is the F-35 Lightning II, a cutting-edge aircraft developed by Lockheed Martin that is prized for its stealth and sensor fusion capabilities.
'There are European alternatives, but none of them compete with the F-35,' said Camille Grand, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The aircraft's main competitors – the Eurofighter Typhoon and French-made Rafale – are in active service in only a minority of European air forces.
Instead, at least 38 F-35s were delivered from the US to Europe in 2024, to countries including Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK.
According to experts, the reliance on the F-35 encapsulates Europe's broader problem with advanced weapon manufacturing: a lack of pooled resources, in contrast to the deep pockets of the US military.
'The key is there is a very big cost to develop this stuff. The F-35 is a hugely expensive programme,' said Guntram Wolff, a senior fellow at the thinktank Bruegel.
'If you want this kind of fighter jet, you need a huge upfront investment. And for any individual European country to do that, it's actually quite difficult.
'After all, we are all relatively small countries compared to the US. So fiscally, that would be a huge burden.'
Europe, instead, tends to manufacture older or more established forms of military technology – tanks, other armoured vehicles and artillery – where domestic industries are more mature.
The German-made Leopard tank is widespread among European land forces, while the British army uses the Challenger, the French the Leclerc and the Italians the Ariete.
But outside the big four, many countries lack a sizable domestic defence industry.
'Poland is the odd one out in terms of large European countries,' said Wolff. 'They don't really have a strong domestic industry, so they buy a lot from abroad'.
Poland has been on a weapon-buying spree since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but it has turned to non-European countries for key pieces of equipment.
In 2024 Poland had its first deliveries of M1A1 Abrams tanks, following a $1.4bn deal with the US signed in 2023. Tanks from South Korea have also been arriving – 56 units of the K2 Black Panther in 2024.
'The Poles have bought so many tanks in the last few years, from American and South Korean sources, that they will soon have more tanks than the French, British and German armies combined,' said Grand.
For many European countries, the benefits of buying American go beyond the hardware.
US deals often come with closer integration into wider US military systems – what defence experts call 'strategic enablers': satellite-based intelligence, secure communication channels or early warning systems.
But relying on the US comes with risk, given that the demand for American weapons is global.
Grand explained: 'There is misperception in Europe that the US is a gigantic Walmart with everything available off the shelf.
'The reality, and especially for complex weapons, is that you end up in a queue. So you buy something and it will be delivered in two, three, five years, depending on where you are in the queue.
'You're not only competing with other European customers, but you're also competing with the American customer, which always gets priority, and you're competing with the Israelis, the Saudis, the Emirates, the Asian market.'
And yet, for nearly the entire postwar period, the US has been the main non-domestic supplier of arms to European countries.
For western Europe this trade relationship has been consistent since the 1950s. For eastern European countries, arms deals with the US only took off at the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But there is now a concerted push within Brussels to deepen defence ties between member states.
In March, the European Commission announced a €150bn loans scheme to prioritise more weapon purchases within the bloc and allied countries, rather than the US.
EU leaders have directly framed the package, called Security Action for Europe (Safe), as a response to Russian aggression. 'We don't have a cold war, but we have a hot war on European soil, and the threat is existential. It's as real as it can get,' the bloc's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas,told reporters.
For Grand, Safe is 'a step in the right direction' – the loans will include more favourable terms to joint purchases 'to incentivise Europeans to buy the same kit' and reduce fragmentation on defence.
But it also raises questions: 'The commission is trying to have a sort of single market for European weapons. But then the question is, what do we mean by single market? Does it include the UK and Norway?'
The new deal announced by the UK and the EU at the end of May offers some answers.
A new security partnership agreed by Starmer and European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has opened the door to British defence companies getting more lucrative contracts funded by Safe loans.
The two sides must now finalise an agreement that will enable British defence companies to be part of joint procurements funded by Safe.
Not all EU member states have welcomed the move towards greater defence integration, however.
The Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, and the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, are among those who have voiced opposition to Safe, citing concerns about the impact on EU debt and national sovereignty.
But, according to Wolffe, old arguments against military cooperation in Europe are being met with a new kind of response.
'Historically, there's this notion that greater cooperation is questionable for sovereignty, and you've got to be careful not to share too much of your defence industry with your neighbours,' he said.
'But the counter argument that many are pushing is that at the moment we have a huge dependency on the US. And that means sovereignty doesn't sit in Europe – it's in Washington.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Russia says NATO needs to demonise it to justify 5% defence spending target
Russia says NATO needs to demonise it to justify 5% defence spending target

Reuters

time43 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Russia says NATO needs to demonise it to justify 5% defence spending target

MOSCOW, June 24 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Tuesday that NATO was on a path of rampant militarisation and bent on portraying Russia as a "fiend of hell" in order to justify committing to a big increase in member states' defence spending. Leaders of NATO, which is kicking off a two-summit in the Netherlands, have said Russia could attack a NATO state in the next few years unless it is stopped from over-running Ukraine. Russia denies any plan to attack NATO, but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was "largely a wasted effort" to assure the alliance of this because it was determined to demonise Russia. "It is an alliance created for confrontation... It is not an instrument of peace and stability," he said, noting NATO's intention to get members to commit to spending 5% of their GDP on defence, as demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. "The alliance is confidently moving along the path of rampant militarisation," Peskov said. In order to push through the 5% target, it was necessary for NATO to conjure up a demonic threat, he added. "To do this, you need to draw a picture of a fiend of hell, a monster. And the point of view of these NATO functionaries, our country is the one best suited for the role of the monster." NATO says its view of Russia is clear-eyed and based on the evidence of the war that Moscow has waged in Ukraine since February 2022. Its summit this week is intended to signal to Putin that NATO is united, despite Trump's previous criticism of the alliance, and determined to expand and upgrade its defences to deter any attack from Moscow. In a separate speech on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused NATO of moving beyond its traditional area of responsibility in an attempt to gain a foothold in the Middle East, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, the Arctic and the Asia-Pacific region. He said Russia-China relations were an "important stabiliser" in Euro-Asian security.

Exclusive: Fed should wait on rate cuts with price hikes expected, Bostic says
Exclusive: Fed should wait on rate cuts with price hikes expected, Bostic says

Reuters

time44 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Exclusive: Fed should wait on rate cuts with price hikes expected, Bostic says

ATLANTA, June 24 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve need not cut interest rates with companies planning to raise prices later this year in response to higher import taxes and with the job market still stable, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic told Reuters. "I think we have some space and time" to watch how the tariff and other policy debates evolve, said Bostic in an interview at his office in downtown Atlanta. He sees the Fed only needing to approve a single quarter-point rate cut late in 2025, based on his view that economic growth will fall to perhaps 1.1% this year and inflation returning to nearly 3% by year's end. Though some Fed officials say rates could fall as soon as July, and U.S. President Donald Trump has been criticizing tight Fed monetary policy, Bostic said the job market shows little sign of fading, while inflation remains a risk. "I'm more concerned about what happens if we don't get to our 2% mandate. Because of that I'm willing to stay in this restrictive posture for longer just to be absolutely sure," said Bostic, referring to the 4.25% to 4.5% policy interest rate the Fed has maintained since December to contain inflation. "I would see the last quarter (of the year) is sort of when I would expect we would know enough to move." Fed policy will be the focus of congressional hearings this week, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell beginning two days of testimony Tuesday morning before the House Financial Services Committee. Trump has called for immediate rate cuts, but uncertainty around his trade and other policies has pushed the central bank onto a cautious footing that may be further amplified by new risks around the conflict with Iran. After a turbulent few months in which recession risk rose alongside the Trump administration's plans for historically high import tariffs, then fell as Trump backed off, Bostic said business sentiment has improved recently - something Powell alluded to in a press conference last week. "Business leaders have lowered the probability of the doomsday scenario" in which tariffs and prices skyrocket and demand wanes, Bostic said. Business executives, he said, have told him they are confident about finding strategies to deal with the tariff levels they expect they are most likely to face. Those strategies include raising prices, perhaps in several steps over time, as companies respond to their competitors, negotiate with suppliers and monitor how consumers adapt, he noted. "They tell me 'I'm pretty sure I am going to have to raise my prices. The question is not whether but when,'" Bostic said, citing a major reason he remains reluctant to cut rates until more is known. Bostic's single anticipated cut this year is less than the two quarter-point cuts at the median of projections issued last week by the Fed's 19 policymakers. Bostic is not a voter this year on interest rates, but like all Fed officials he participates in Federal Open Market Committee debates about appropriate policy. Since December that has meant holding the benchmark overnight rate steady as the Trump administration moved to reorder global trade by imposing stiff tariffs on imported goods. Some of those levies are already in place, but have yet to significantly affect the pace of price increases that are near but still above the central bank's 2% target. In recent days, Fed Governors Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman, who is also the U.S. central bank board's vice chair for supervision, said recent inflation data has been mild enough to justify a rate cut as soon as July. But much remains unknown ahead of a July 9 deadline for the imposition of U.S. tariffs as high as 50% on European Union nations and various levies across much of the rest of the world. Bostic said many businesses in his southern Fed district say they have held the line on prices so far, but have nearly exhausted the tools at hand to keep doing so. "More and more businesses are telling me that in their sector, the strategies that they had to forbear are increasingly running their course," Bostic said. "They have worked but they have run their course and they can't keep doing it."

Powell is staying at the Fed, with Trump appointments possibly limited
Powell is staying at the Fed, with Trump appointments possibly limited

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Powell is staying at the Fed, with Trump appointments possibly limited

WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell begins two days of congressional testimony on Tuesday under fire from President Donald Trump for not cutting interest rates but with his status as head of the central bank seemingly secured from any presidential action by a Supreme Court ruling last month. Trump has mused about firing Powell or naming a successor soon, in what some analysts see as an effort to influence monetary policy through a "shadow" Fed chair even before Powell leaves office in May 2026. However the Supreme Court's acknowledgment last month that the Fed has a unique status, with its seven governors immune from removal over policy disagreements, has highlighted not just that Powell will serve out his term, but that Trump may be able to appoint only one additional board member before leaving office in January 2029. The risk of naming a Powell replacement early, months before a board seat opens in January, and months after that until Powell departs, could be greater than any influence a chair-in-waiting might have, Evercore ISI vice chair and former New York Fed official Krishna Guha wrote recently. "Nominating the next Fed chair now with the expectation that this person would be an active alternative voice on monetary policy for the best part of a year would confuse the ways that would not help advance rate cuts," Guha wrote. "The intended be unable to exercise real influence on policy for some time, and could lose credibility critiquing a Committee he would need to manage upon taking over." Any missteps could also complicate Senate confirmation. Powell starts his twice-yearly round of Capitol Hill hearings on Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee with many policymakers reluctant to cut interest rates, despite Trump's public demands, until the administration's back-and-forth debate over tariffs is resolved and there is more clarity about how they may influence inflation, growth and jobs. The U.S. bombing of Iran and conflict between Iran and Israel could also factor into Powell's appearance, with the possibility of rising oil prices becoming part of a Fed economic outlook that has been revised towards slower growth and higher inflation since Trump took office and embarked on his tariff campaign. So far, though, oil prices have remained steady. Whatever Trump thinks the Fed should do, the ranks of policymakers are all but settled, absent unexpected resignations. To limit how much change a president can make at the Fed in any four-year term, and thus cap political leverage over interest rate decisions that can have electoral consequences, Congress sets Fed governors' terms at 14 years, with expirations staggered every two years. The chair's term runs on a separate four-year schedule to give every president the chance to name the central bank's powerful head. While his chair term expires next May, Powell's Fed board term expires in 2028, though he may well follow precedent and leave the Fed once his time as chair is over. That means Trump has only two certain vacancies to fill in his term, Powell's and another seat held by Governor Adriana Kugler, appointed by former President Joe Biden, that expires in January. Two other board members, Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Governor Chris Waller, were appointed by Trump in his first term. They are now as insulated from pressure as the others, and have joined a series of unanimous votes this year to keep interest rates steady, though both recently said a cut as soon as July may be appropriate. Interest rates, though, are set at meetings that include the 12 regional Fed bank presidents, five of whom vote on rates in any given year. They are even further outside of presidential control, hired by the boards of directors of what are quasi-private institutions established more than a century ago to ensure regional input into national monetary policy. While a chair or a president could veto a given candidate to run a reserve bank, terms of only three of the 12 expire before Trump leaves office, and none until 2028. The rest are under terms extending into the 2030s. Former and current Fed officials talk about the pull of the institution on those inside it. Each of eight annual meetings involves extensive staff and other briefings on the state of the economy and the outlook. Officials also shape their views from interviews with business and community leaders, the regular cycle of data from government statistical agencies, and the almost constant chatter of colleagues expressing their opinions in public. Markets play a role as well, voting daily on emerging Fed policy through the pricing of bonds, stocks, and contracts tied directly to the Fed's policy rate. For actual policymakers, let alone "shadow" officials not acting in any formal capacity, there's not much room to hide, a sea change from the days when former Chair Alan Greenspan tightly controlled the Fed's sometimes cryptic messaging. "We have 19 members, all of whom are pretty confident and opinionated. One thing that we get very well conditioned to do is to listen attentively to the opinions of the many people who think that there are things we could do differently and better, but then still try to make the right decision," Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin told Reuters. "I think we're well conditioned to focus on the mission and not focus on the noise."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store