Can Europe defend itself from Russia?

Yahoo

13-02-2025

Donald Trump's new defence secretary ripped up decades of foreign policy when he told European allies they must now look after their own defence.
Pete Hegseth said that the United States would no longer 'tolerate an imbalanced relationship' with its allies and called on Nato members to spend much more on defence.
But after more than 75 years of sheltering behind the US, can Europe defend itself?
Mr Hegseth said that the US was not 'primarily focused on the security of Europe' and the Continent must more than double defence spending.
European countries must take over providing the majority of aid to Ukraine, and underwrite security guarantees to Kyiv that would contain a belligerent Russia following any peace deal.
He said: 'Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of Nato.
'As part of this, Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.'
An earlier draft of his speech suggested he had wanted to go further and declare the US was no longer 'the primary guarantor of security in Europe'.
After years of frustration in Washington that Europe is freeloading, his comments have increased fears that Mr Trump will now step back from the Continent, leaving it to defend itself.
American military and economic might has guaranteed European security for more than 75 years.
The Nato alliance promises that anyone who attacks its European members will find themselves having to answer to the most powerful military colossus the world has ever seen.
Such guaranteed protection has allowed European nations to neglect their own security, confident that Washington has their back.
This US protection was at its height during the Cold War, but it is still enormous and the US dominates Nato, which is always led by an American officer.
Overall, the US has more than 100,000 military personnel deployed in Europe and has at least 25 significant bases, such as RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall in the UK.
That footprint is backed by the rest of the US military, with its 1.3 million active-duty personnel and 800,000 reservists.
The US military budget is by far the biggest in the world. It accounts for nearly 40 per cent of all worldwide military spending and is more than three times as much as its closest rival, China.
The US is so dominant that other nations have naturally fallen in behind its lead.
No single nation is powerful enough to fill that gap and take on the responsibility for leading Europe's defence, so strategic decisions will have to be taken by a group of European peers such as Britain, France and Germany. They have very different priorities and ideas, and there is great potential for squabbling.
No other military can fight at scale in the way in which the US can. Sheltered by American protection since the end of the Cold War, several European militaries have diminished into what defence analysts have dismissively called 'bonsai armies'.
Greatly pruned, they are designed for small, short campaigns rather than major conflicts. They may have a wide range of capabilities, but they are shallow and cannot keep them up for long. They would quickly founder under the scale of casualties, ammunition use or equipment losses seen on Ukraine's battlefields, for example.
Mass and numbers are not all that the US provides. Nato is reliant on US military know-how, equipment and expertise to underpin its forces and knit them into a coherent unit.
These so-called enablers range from intelligence and logistics, to surveillance and early warning. In practice, that might mean anything from military satellites to transport aircraft and refuelling tankers to airborne surveillance planes and drones.
In Nato's Afghanistan mission, for example, European countries had to rely heavily on the US for supplies, hospitals, transport and intelligence.
Not at the moment.
'Some of these things can be fixed, but it takes a lot of money and a lot of time and Europeans are out of both,' says Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow for European security at the Royal United Services Institute.
Mr Hegseth wants European nations to raise their defence spending, from the Nato benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP up to 5 per cent.
Some of this is happening, European leaders insist. Nato spending by non-US members rose by a fifth in 2024, the alliance said last week.
Nato's eastern members who feel particularly threatened by Russia, such as the Baltic states and Poland, are rearming. Warsaw is spending more than 4 per cent of GDP on defence.
Yet money is not enough without motivation and a clear strategic direction.
In 2022, Germany announced a one-off £83 billion fund to try to upgrade its decrepit forces. Little improvement has happened since.
Britain and France have their own nuclear arsenals, and under Nato weapons sharing, the US has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey to deploy and store. Europe has also been protected under the US's wider nuclear umbrella.
If the US posture in Europe alters, then clarifying what will happen to the nuclear deterrent will be a priority. But experts do not believe nuclear policy will change.
The Trump administration might have a reputation for making threats to shake up a situation, or a negotiation, and then backing away, but none of Mr Hegseth's comments should surprise European leaders.
They would be unwise to think this was a bluff, said Mr Arnold.
'I think this is it this time. I thought Hegseth's words were clear and unambiguous,' he said.
Washington has been frustrated at picking up Europe's security tab for years. Barack Obama also complained that a complacent Europe was not pulling its weight. As far back as the Libyan campaign in 2011, Washington said it was high time Europe took the lead on its own doorstep.
The question is what would European leadership for defence of the Continent look like? Would the US leave, scale back or just take a back seat?
Mr Trump is reported to have already told European leaders he wants to withdraw 20,000 troops, though Mr Hegseth has been more conciliatory.
'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say America's abandoning something or America's leaving,' Mr Hegseth said this week.
There may also be plenty of strategic reasons for the US to still keep bases and forces on the Continent. Bases in northern Europe could become important for competition with Russia and China in the Arctic.
But Europe needed to be much better at making its case, said Mr Arnold.
He said: 'I don't think this is the US out of Europe, but the Europeans need to do more than express just shock and horror.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.