In the blink of an eye, the roles have reversed. The U.S. – which had been Ukraine’s biggest arms supplier – has suspended military aid to that embattled nation even as the Trump administration vows to slash America’s defense budget.
Meanwhile, Europe – whose armed forces have been hollowed out by decades of neglect – is vowing a massive arms buildup to both revitalize European strength, and sustain Ukraine. Britain has pledged to boost defense spending to 2.5 percent from its current 2.3 percent. This exceeds NATO’s goal of 2 percent for members of the alliance, though far from Trump’s demand that NATO’s benchmark should be 5 percent.
After 75 years of having America take the lead for European defense, Europe’s newfound resolve to defend itself is stirring and overdue. It should also be feasible: with more than 13 percent of global GDP, and some of the advanced economies on the planet, Europe doesn’t lack for money, technology or talent.
The question is whether Europe has the capacity – political and economic — to really rearm.
Where does the money come from?
With $840 billion in EU defense funding just announced by European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, Europe seems to be putting its Euros where its mouth is.
Perhaps not coincidentally, that’s about the same amount as the 2024 U.S. defense budget. However, that U.S. budget figure is for one year of defense spending. It’s not clear for how many years the EU’s $840 billion – assuming that proposal is even implemented – is supposed to cover.
The EU has also proposed floating around $158 billion in debt in order to issue loans to member nations for artillery, missiles and other weapons. In addition, the EU may waive strict fiscal rules that limit the ability of members to run deficits.
These are not insignificant changes. The EU has been more about European economic and political integration than security (which is what NATO is for). Actively funding defense procurement sounds like a precursor for the EU becoming a military bloc with an integrated pan-European military.
But the U.S. has a major advantage in defense spending: there is only one defense budget to be devised and approved by one president and one legislature. The EU is comprised of 27 nations, each with its leader, legislature, armed forces and interest groups. For example, Germany has constitutional restrictions on running budget deficits, and was less than sympathetic when EU members such as Greece racked up debts.
Where do the weapons and ammunition come from?
It is understandable that after two world wars and nearly 50 years of cold war, Europe allowed its defense industrial base to lapse after the demise of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, Europe needs to replenish its neglected armed forces while supplying those of Ukraine.
Even in World War II, when weapons were far simpler to mass produce, it took the United States at least two years after Pearl Harbor to reach peak production.
America is hardly an exemplar of efficient defense procurement (see F-35). But European defense firms – whose stock prices are skyrocketing — warn that it will take years for them to ramp up production (Russia is already at full-scale war production) All amid potential trade wars and competition for resources with China and the United States, and even Europe if nations vie for raw materials and lucrative contracts to boost their defense manufacturers.
Where does the political willpower come from?
Defense production is a long-term process. Even if Germany and other European nations are willing to run deficits in pursuit of security, every Euro spent on weapons is one less Euro available for social programs. Europe already faces challenges such as anemic economic growth, aging populations and low birth rates, and a generous welfare state in the more developed nations on the continent.
Challenger 3 Tank. Image Credit: British Government.
Were this 1943, perhaps the European public would be more than willing to endure hardships for the sake of security. But the economy is flat, and there is the rise of populist and right-wing parties who don’t support Ukraine nor even consider Russia a threat.
Will Europeans be willing to accept cuts in their standard of living, and will governments be willing to demand those sacrifices?
About the Author: Defense Expert Michael Peck
Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Business Insider, Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.
Commentar
March 5, 2025 at 9:39 am
Europe today led by the likes of macron, starmer and von der leyen, who are actually the reincarnated 21st century nazists, wish to retrace the exact steps taken by the naxis in the thirties.
In 1935, adolf hitler announced the formation of the wehrmacht, with a starting force of 36 divisions.
That was the starting point of rearmament in europe.
What quickly followed later was the outbreak of ww2, when the brits and french recoiled at hitler’s EASTWARD push.
As a result, hitler turned WESTWARD, to the Low countries and to france, which he defeated in four weeks through the innovative ardennes lunge by the wehrmacht.
Today, europe clearly wants to re-live history, the history of fascism in europe.
One-World-Order
March 6, 2025 at 3:07 am
Today, the world faces three dire existential threats.
1) The fascistic warmongers of europe who’re literally salivating for ww3.
2) The silent islamofascist threat posed by turkey & HTS.
3) The globalist threat posed by unbridled bribery & corruption & debt-trap diplomacy from bidenista reps.
Swamplaw Yankee
March 7, 2025 at 3:57 am
There are 27 countries who must make decisions on their % of GNP that goes to defence. Postage Stamp NATO members can easily get over 5% and still not afford one Main Battle Tank fleet of two.
Ad rem, there is only one eternal war that is “HOT”. That is the orc muscovite elite 1000 plus year old war on Ukrainians.
The ancient genetic need of the orc muscovite elite to thrust the Russian peasant into the front lines has been on-going for centuries. It works well as the elite has turned tiny Rump Russia into a large mostly slave nation empire. No matter if it was Czarist, Bolshevik or Putinite elite, the Russian peasant was faced with few choices.
The EU recognize that the Ukrainians know their ancient genetic enemy. The EU know that the ancient muscovite elite were slave sex traders, bi-annually raiding Christian Ukraine for children for the very lucrative sex trade with Muslim traders.
Some even recall as Stalin butchered 20 million Ukrainians in 1932-33 by the HOLODOMOR Starvation. All the food in every Ukrainian home was seized and sent north to the orc homes in Russia. The same happened in 1931 with millions of german settlers in Ukraine.
The EU know that the Ukrainian independent state was squashed In March 1939 by Hungary and their buddies, the Nazis and this free state never re-appeared. One can see that this is a mystery never encountered by the Yankee DNI or Historians. It is like asking the above, where was Hitler for 2 full years of his adult life? Yes, with John Carter, of course! Not.
The orc Muscovite elite dissolved + swallowed this independent Ukrainian State and no one in Yankee ever complained in their MSM. Only mysterious Ukrainian stamps and money remain as flotsam and jetsam.
Worked then, why not now? That is the question? Let pass on money inside the Yankee to our embedded fellow travellers for their vocal agreement.
The period of two years is mentioned. ad rem, To re-arm the EU.
The question is, it was 2013-14 when the USA unilaterally sold out the WEST with the treason of their free, no-cost give-away of the ancient soil of Crimea to the Cold war enemy: the orc muscovite elite. The war started. Why the delay in a common understanding of this eternal war?
Did the many intelligence services of the EU not inform their masters of the orc muscovite gift of the Crimea, etc? Was it like in 2022 when the same intelligence groupies claimed again they were just so very overpaid that they saw + knew nothing. The loss to Putin of this geopolitical advantage held by the WEST in the middle east was severe. The pre-existing geo-political balance must be restored for a minimum sense of VICTORY.
With orc muscovite elite down to mule, donkey, horse and camel transport, their covert USA compadres suddenly demand a cease fire. Why, so? Why save the ole slave trading muscovite elite after a battle from 2014. Just reduce the orc muscovite to a Rump Russia and free the enslaved ethnic nations of Siberia and the near east. Does the WEST grasp this as the VICTORY? Got it? Solve the Problem with the Potemkin Village imagery! Take the concept of depicting a Potemkin Village away from the grasp of the ancient slave sex trading Russian. Without fear, tell the Russian to keep his redlines inside his short pants. Or, if a coward, let the Ukrainians tell the orc muscovites!
The Yankee empire may suddenly not be cognitively capable against the European-EU empire. That remains deep inside the internal concepts of the chief magistrate. The chief magistrate clearly demands Victory for the WEST as Victory for Ukraine, or, self-abdicates his leadership role of the WEST. A new Winston Churchill will emerge to be a WEST leader who uses the above euros to rearm Europe as a whole and Eastern Europe in particular! – 30 –