Ten to twenty years and roughly one trillion euros—that is the mantra of politicians who want to make it clear that European NATO countries cannot realistically do without the United States for the time being. The trillion-euro figure comes from a study by the respected IISS in London. It represents the cost of replacing all American capabilities, from the roughly 100,000 U.S. troops with their equipment and support to American command-and-control systems and intelligence networks.
In doing so, they overlook the fact that Ukraine has already been holding out for more than four years against those same Russians without relying on many of the American capabilities that are supposedly essential to keep them at bay.
The calculation of the cost of a “European NATO” ignores the military revolution currently taking place in Ukraine. Russia is struggling to break through the Ukrainian drone “kill zone,” which in some places is up to 50 kilometers wide. These drones are cheap, replace traditional munitions, and destroy any multimillion-euro tank that enters the zone.
The main European shortcomings—shared with the United States—are in electronic warfare to jam enemy drones and in experience with a fully transparent battlefield where anything that moves is eliminated.
The absence of the much-praised American command-and-control system has been compensated by the Ukrainians with their own superior Delta system. Moreover, France now reportedly provides two-thirds of combat intelligence.
The United States is currently withholding ammunition for key weapons systems such as ATACMS and HIMARS. Ukraine, however, compensates by producing its own weapons capable of striking targets deep inside Russian territory.
The most significant shortages lie in air-defense missiles for the Patriot systems. These have been expended in excessive numbers during the U.S. war with Iran. A shortage now looms not only for Ukraine but also for European NATO countries.
The way Ukraine is defending itself serves as a model for NATO. Recently, I saw firsthand in Lithuania how a similar drone defense system is being built. Speaking with military personnel on the ground, one hears that defense against Russia can indeed be organized with relatively limited resources.
Even in the nuclear domain, progress is being made now that France has indicated it is willing to deploy its nuclear capability for the benefit of European allies.
The real challenge lies in the European defense industry, which has yet to truly get up to speed. In the Netherlands as well, defense companies become bogged down in regulations, meaning it can take years, for example, to obtain an environmental permit. In this way, we risk losing to Russia because we are paralyzed by excessive procedures.
Yet behind the scenes, taboos are being broken at a rapid pace—especially now that Chancellor Friedrich Merz has changed course. He recognizes that a European-led NATO is necessary because the United States has become unreliable. As a result, a debate that has been simmering behind the scenes for a year is now accelerating. Experts everywhere are being invited to contribute to the discussion.
A consensus is emerging that “that trillion and ten to twenty years” is exaggerated. It can be done quickly—provided that politicians, like Merz, are willing to acknowledge that such speed is essential for our own security and that unnecessary procedures are swept aside.
Experts
Related Content
