Trump has dudded Ukraine. Can Europe come to its rescue?
The big shift among European leaders is the hardening in their language about military options. This is not just about meeting Trump's demand to spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence – a long-term aspiration. It is about doing more – fast – to help Ukraine, and in doing so, helping themselves.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a key figure now that Denmark has taken the presidency of the EU for the second half of this year, summed this up at a press conference with Zelensky and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen last Thursday.
'The war in Ukraine has never been only about Ukraine – it's about Europe,' she said in Aarhus. 'All of us hope that [the] US will continue their support for Ukraine, and because of Ukraine, for Europe. But if there are any gaps, then I personally believe that we should be willing to fill in.'
The ambition is clear. The capacity, however, is not. The huge question in Europe is whether the major powers have the industrial capacity – the sheer military muscle – to match Russia at a time when Putin shows no sign of stopping the war in Ukraine and every sign he wants to start fights elsewhere. The latest evidence is in Azerbaijan, where Russia is turning on its former ally.
Can Europe counter Putin in the grim scenario of outright war? No less than Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, admits the Europeans do not have the military might they need.
Loading
'We have an enormous geopolitical challenge on our hands,' Rutte told The New York Times in a sobering interview on the weekend. 'And that is first of all Russia, which is reconstituting itself at a pace and a speed which is unparalleled in recent history. They are now producing three times as much ammunition in three months as the whole of NATO is doing in a year.'
Put simply, the blockades and sanctions are not enough. Russia is rebuilding. Rutte added a warning about China's military ambitions, as well. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – the CRINKs – are sharing military technology in a way that steadily increases the risk to the West.
The Shahed drones that deliver death from the air show the CRINK economic model in action. The drones are based on an Iranian design but have been adapted by Russia in more lethal versions. They are made in Russia using parts from China. One day soon, according to Japanese news site NHK, they may be assembled by visiting North Korean workers.
The argument about defence spending as a percentage of GDP in 2030 seems hopelessly abstract in the light of concrete facts. Right now, for all its economic wealth, western Europe lacks the capacity to match Putin where it counts – in the missile bombardment seen over Ukraine.
Ukraine's military intelligence, known as the HUR, estimates Russia is producing 60 to 70 of its Iskander ballistic missiles and more than 10 of the hypersonic Kinzhals each month. That suggests an annual tally of 960 – although it is obviously difficult to be certain.
That sum is greater than the American production of Patriot air defence missiles – the essential systems Trump is denying Ukraine. Lockheed-Martin has increased annual output of the Patriot PAC-3 MSE to 400 units a year and is aiming for 500 this year and 650 in a few years' time.
So America has the stockpiles to help Ukraine, but it also has a challenge in matching Putin.
Europe, meanwhile, is struggling to keep up. Fabian Hoffmann, a research fellow at the University of Oslo and a non-resident fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, says the European public will be 'enraged' if war comes and civilians discover the failure of their leaders to invest in missile defence.
Loading
Hoffmann estimates Europe's annual production of the PAC-3 MSE interceptor is about 550 units a year. Europe makes other defence systems, so this is not the full picture, but he believes the number of available systems is far too low.
European leaders have responded to this moment with fine words. They know they must do what Trump will not. But the meeting this Thursday may only highlight the severe challenge in turning words into actions.
This is a shocking state for Europe more than a decade after Putin began his military incursion into Ukraine and more than three years after he launched a full-scale war that is dominated by missile and drone attacks. Putin told the world about the future of war. Too many were too slow to listen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Trump ‘snubbed' as UK parliament reportedly rejects address during next state visit
Sky News host Caroline Di Russo reflects on French President Emmanuel Macron's state visit to the United Kingdom, weighing in on reports about US President Donald Trump's expected visit later this year. 'Interestingly, it has been since reported in the UK Telegraph that President Trump will be denied an address to the UK parliament during his next state visit,' Ms Di Russo said. 'They say the trip has deliberately been moved to mid-September, during a parliamentary recess, to give the government an excuse to not give President Trump that honour, an honour given to Barack Obama and, of course, as recently as this week, President Macron. 'Let's see what, if anything, is made of that apparent snub.'
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
China was the big disruptor in our region. Now the US is determined to take that title
Australia and China, the prime minister told the secretary of the CCP's Shanghai Municipal Committee on Sunday, "deal with each other in a calm and consistent manner". "And we want to continue to pursue our national interests, and it is in our interest to have good relations with China". It's the sort of polite diplomatic language that can often sound eye glazing at bilateral meetings on official trips. But it had a particularly pointed resonance this time, given there is little that feels 'calm and consistent' emanating from our other major international partner: the United States of America. There is the ongoing and escalating trade war that President Trump has unleashed upon the globe, and notably on countries that have close economic relationships with China. And there has also been his continuing pressure on allies to increase their defence spending, facing the prospect of a US withdrawal of its forces — and military spending — around the world. Over the weekend, the US president has made more declarations about tariffs he plans to impose on the European Union and Mexico. To date, Australia hasn't been subjected to talk of any further punitive tariffs. But on the strategic front, an intervention by his Under Secretary of Defence for Strategy, Elbridge Colby, signalled that pressure that has, to date, been most notably seen on NATO countries in Europe to increase their defence spending, is now turning to the Asia Pacific. The Financial Times reported that the Pentagon is pressing Japan and Australia to make clear what role they would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan. Apart from being the latest attempt by the US administration to pressure all its allies on spending, the issue raises a whole set of separate issues for Australia, because of the AUKUS agreement. The AUKUS agreement — which includes, in the shorter term, the purchases by Australia of US nuclear-powered submarines — is built on a so-called 'forward defence' strategy — one that envisages a conflict fought out in the South China Sea, rather than in the maritime approaches to Australia closer to home. AUKUS sceptics have long argued that the increasing intermeshing of Australia's defence capability with that of the US (even before AUKUS), tied us intrinsically into whatever military operations the United States might undertake in the future. The AUKUS deal escalated that possibility, raising the question of whether the submarine deal would link us into a conflict between our biggest trading partner and our biggest ally over Taiwan. The leaking of news about Secretary Colby's pressure on Australia and Japan makes that question over our position on a war over Taiwan — which has tended to be fobbed off as hypothetical until now — a much sharper one. The irony of course is that the United States has always maintained a position of 'strategic ambiguity' about what it would do in the case of China invading Taiwan. Yet now it is pressuring Australia and Japan to say what they would do. What's more the story appeared just as the Australian prime minister touched down in Shanghai: timing that few believe was coincidental and possibly designed to disrupt any improvement in relations between the two countries, and to dominate the coverage of the visit. Prime Minister Albanese and his foreign minister Penny Wong have been significantly changing their language about Australia's strategic approach to both the US and China in the past couple of weeks, and China hawks in Australia have been warning that the change in tone in the way the PM has reflected on, and defined the ANZUS alliance, would not be welcomed in Washington. In a major speech, Mr Albanese spoke of the decision of his predecessor John Curtin to turn the United States during World War II involved "an Australian foreign policy anchored in strategic reality, not bound by tradition". It was "dealing with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be", he said, a statement with clear resonances in the present. While Australia's position between the two superpowers is often seen as a binary choice of one or the other, the times compel a different, more nuanced and independent approach. After a decade of discussion in Australia about China seen largely through a national security lens, understandably provoked by China's increasing defence position, the PM's message ahead of this trip to China has been a nod to our huge trade relationship and to people-to-people contacts. Chinese tourism to Australia, for one thing, was worth $9 billion alone last year. But Mr Albanese's foreign minister, Penny Wong, has been taking the role of 'bad cop', putting on record with her counterpart on the sidelines of an ASEAN meeting in Kuala Lumpur that Australia was not happy about China's live fire exercises off our coast, or a range of other issues. For the always carefully spoken, the language was stronger than it has been in the past, and came on the back of a speech in which she expressed Australia's concern about China's military build up, including nuclear weaponry. It seemed to signal a balanced approach to the good and bad of the Australia-China relationship, just as the government was also sending a clear signal that it would take a more independent approach, less frightened of offending the Americans, than has been the case in recent years. But just as Australia is asserting that its national interests are different from those of both China and the US, it seems the United States may force us into a choice we don't want to make. Mr Albanese was careful in his response to the Elbridge story, agreeing that there was some irony in the US expecting Australia to outline its position on an issue which the Americans have not done. And also insisting that Australia's preference is for the status quo over Taiwan to continue. Five years ago it seemed China was the big disruptor in our region. Now the United States appears determined to take that title for itself. Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Pauline Hanson claims Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is avoiding Donald Trump after Zelensky's Oval Office ‘dressing down'
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has claimed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is avoiding President Donald Trump after Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky was given a 'dressing down' in the Oval Office earlier this year. Ukraine's leader was accused of being "disrespectful" to the United States after it provided billions worth of military equipment to aid it defence against Russia. Following the heated meeting, President Zelensky received the backing from several world leaders, including Mr Albanese who said Australia 'proudly supported' Ukraine. Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, Senator Hanson said the Prime Minister was not going to 'get in touch' with President Trump despite the US-Australia alliance appearing to be on the rocks. Mr Albanese, who arrived in China late on Saturday evening, beginning a six-day-long trip that will include a meeting with China's President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang, has insisted he would 'have a meeting when it's scheduled' with the President and suggested there would be plenty of opportunities in coming months. However, Senator Hanson claimed Mr Albanese saw President Zelensky 'get a dressing down by Trump' and decided to avoid a similar altercation. 'He thought: 'I'm not going to go through that. I will actually not get in touch. I won't have a visit with him',' she said. Mr Albanese's delay in meeting President Trump has prompted criticism over the strength of the alliance and the Prime Minister's personal engagement with the Trump administration. President Trump's former pollster revealed last month that the US President does not like US Ambassador Kevin Rudd. 'I think he doesn't like the current ambassador and that's one of the biggest issues,' US pollster Brent Buchanan said on Monday. 'Donald Trump needs to find an Australian that he likes - or Australia needs to find an Australian that Donald Trump likes and let that person take point.' Senator Hanson said she had travelled with the Prime Minister and witnessed first-hand his interaction with leaders overseas. 'It's not good. He has not got leadership qualities about him to interact with these people. He might have improved over the years, but my impression of him was not very high at all,' she said. The Senator said the Prime Minister was 'very poor' in his conversation with leaders in India, including governors, when a delegation went there in 2017. 'I just didn't feel that he interacted with them. I think he was very poor in his conversation, the questions, even his answers to the questions,' she said. During his first press conference of his China trip, Mr Albanese was asked about what role Australia would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan. 'Our aim of investing in our capability and as well investing in our relationships is about advancing peace and security in our region. That's our objective and that is why we invest in our region,' he replied. Senator Hanson said the Prime Minister was 'not prepared' to say how Australia would use the nuclear submarines bequeathed by the US under the AUKUS agreement. 'I don't trust this government,' she said. 'He has an obligation to tell the people what he thinks… to leave this in the hands of a Prime Minister solely at his whim I think is a big mistake.' Senator Hanson said when it came to defence, she wanted the two major political parties to commit to a long-term goal and objective of 'where we lie as a nation'. 'We've seen a changeover and turnover of too many Prime Ministers in this country. I would like to see a united front that will give us long-term vision for this country and security to the people,' she said.
