As NATO enters its 76th year—amid talk of the United States potentially reducing its commitment to Europe—many wonder how the Alliance would fare in a crisis without direct American support.
Could Europe defend itself if Washington stepped back?
At first glance, the collective military power of Europe under the NATO banner is vast. In 2022, Ukraine, with far fewer and largely Soviet-era weapons, managed to halt Russia’s advance and push its forces back in most areas. By comparison, European NATO members possess thousands of modern battle tanks (Leopard 2, Leclerc, Challenger 2) and advanced fighter jets (Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, SAAB Gripen), alongside a host of Western-supplied precision-guided munitions.
In raw numbers, European NATO militaries together maintain over 1.5 million active troops—more than Russia’s standing force.
Further amplifying this strength is the way NATO conducts combined-arms operations, integrating infantry, armour, artillery, aviation, and naval forces into cohesive campaigns. The war in Ukraine has shown that modern tactics emphasising mobility, flexibility, and precision can overwhelm larger but less agile armies.
Russia’s struggle to coordinate its various military branches effectively highlights how NATO’s integrated doctrine could outmanoeuvre Russia on the battlefield.
Yet America’s role as a strategic “enabler” for Europe remains undeniable. Key capabilities—such as air-to-air refueling, large-scale troop and equipment transport, space-based intelligence, and missile defense—rely heavily on U.S. assets. Without them, NATO’s ability to sustain large-scale operations over time could be significantly tested.
The nuclear dimension is another factor: Europe’s deterrence currently hinges on Britain and France, but they lack the comprehensive global coverage offered by the U.S. arsenal.
In any rapid clash, European NATO members would likely mount a robust defence. But what about a protracted conflict? Sustaining operations beyond the opening phases would require logistical, intelligence, and technological support that the United States has long provided.
Even if Europe can field impressive hardware, moving it into position, protecting supply lines, and coordinating high-intensity efforts over many months are huge undertakings.
With all this in mind, there is an open question: Could Europe truly defend itself without the U.S.?
The answer may hinge on whether European nations invest more in their own defences, bolster industrial capacity, and enhance shared intelligence and logistics. Equally crucial is maintaining NATO’s unity of purpose—without it, even the best-equipped militaries can falter in the face of mounting pressure.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
The Donald has put the cat amongst the canaries. Asking for 5% GDP to defence ratio probably means EU and UK will need to move towards something more like 3%. Which is where the UK should be with the current threats against our freedom, democracy and national interests.
It is reasonable to ask first world countries to pay their share
Spain paying 1.2% of GDP is a piss take akin to Germany’s decades long failure to pay their way.
Trump told them in his first term they had to do it, what did NATO expect?
450 millions Europeans should not rely on 300 million Americans to protection them from 120 million Russians.
Time as Côme to rise
The war in Ukraine has significantly degraded Russia’s military capabilities, eroding its equipment, manpower, and strategic position. The Russian military has suffered heavy casualties, lost significant equipment, and demonstrated logistical and strategic failings.
The war in Ukraine has provided invaluable real-world combat experience and lessons learned. European militaries can adapt their training, doctrine, and procurement to address any weaknesses exposed by the conflict.
The Ukrainian example highlights the critical importance of willpower, determination, and popular support. These intangible factors are essential for any successful defense.
The article correctly identifies the challenges Europe faces without full American support. However, the analysis underestimates Europe’s inherent strengths and the pivotal context of Russia’s diminished capabilities. Europe, with its superior military technology, integrated doctrine, demographic advantages, and the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, can defend itself and, in a conflict scenario, defeat Russia. This requires continued investment in defense, enhanced industrial capacity, improved logistics, and most importantly, unwavering unity of purpose within NATO minus US. The experience in Ukraine proves the effectiveness of these types of defense.
110%
The US has exposed itself as an unreliable partner, if their worth as an ally is subject to a coinflip every 4 years the only sensible option is well armed self sufficiency.
The EU plus UK has as you state a larger population, it also has a roughly equal GDP. there is no reason we could not field and equip an equivalent military.
The Orange rage-baby didn’t say when he intends to move the USA to 5%…
Meanwhile Poland is at 4% and Lithuania is at 5%
Trump wants to move the USA down to 1.5% not up to 5%. The US military is about to be gutted. Elon is off to the DoD once he is finished with the DoE to feed it into the wood chipper.
Not a chance. Too many senators and congressmen have defence bases or industries in their states and districts. Congress decides the defence budget not the president.
Old world I’m afraid, the Donald and DOGE are no longer consulting the senate, just cancelling contracts, MAGA don’t care about jobs just burning foreigners and liberals.
F35 will be gone by Christmas
Replaced by flying Tesla Bots no doubt
Did trump hurt u at some point ? Getting rid of waste in the government isn’t a bad thing no matter how much the media spins it deporting people who shouldn’t be in the USA is a brilliant thing it’s not about hatred of foreigners it’s about loving your own citizens first as to your idea of military contracts being cancelled not a chance that’s go8 g to happen
He literally said he wants to cut the department of defence budget in half, he said it in the Oval Office last night, I’m just quoting him and taking him at his word.
Has the Mango Mussolini put tariffs on punctuation??
“He literally said he wants to cut the department of defence budget in half, he said it in the Oval Office last night, I’m just quoting him and taking him at his word.”
So? He did much more cutting in SpaceX costs to make a space flight.
Of course people in a decadent country/continent do not understand this.
How many new companies born in UK, or UE say up to 20 years ago made an impact in the world? I can count a dozen of Chinese, a couple American and don’t remember any from UK or UE
What is UE, are you talking about Dubai? What level of education do you have? Do you own a map or a passport?
As for British companies ARM and AstraZeneca.
The UK’s GDP is roughly the same as California’s. We are tiny.
I think the USA pays enough seeing as the whole of European NATO depends on them.
Orange baby eh? Do you miss old Sniffer Mr Spook?
Plus, we—and I’m talking about every European power here—have a willpower deficit.
to be succint, we don’t care about our armed forces. that’s it, really.
we will only do something if something really, really bad happens.
It’s not that we are tiny it’s that the US is a super power…we are infact on the scale of powers large…it
S just the scale of the two superpowers are a different order.
The US has exposed itself as an unreliable partner, if their worth as an ally is subject to a coinflip every 4 years the only sensible option is well armed self sufficiency.
The EU plus UK have a larger population (1/2B vs 1/3B), they also has a roughly equal GDP. there is no reason we could not field and equip an equivalent military.
If Europe isn’t a superpower its by choice…
Spock, why is Lilliputian Lithuania even a country? Those Baltic states are dying off, by the end of the century they will almost be empty. Strong man like the old Orange senior hates when the tail tries to wag the big dog. Demographic experts expect huge decline in Europe populations but Muslims will not decline.
Lilliputian Lithuanua is a country because its people want it to be, and in a civilised world that should be enough. They have a distinct history that goes back 800 years, and they’d like to keep that going, thank you very much. They struggled hard for their freedom, and suffered under Soviet rule, and they deserve not to be sold down the river. The same goes for the Ukrainians. As for the Muslims that seem to live rent-free in your head, they are far less of a threat to our future than the moral pygmies.
👍Exactly!
That could depend on Congress? Repub’s have only a wafer thin majority!
Imagine Germany spending 5% of her GDP on the military- more than US200 billion/annum- !
In a conventional war we could. If nuclear we would all be dead so wouldn’t have to worry… On the percentage qyestion 2.5 or 3.0 means nothing. It is the size of the economy that counts. We must learn to talk in billions rather than percentages.
Great articles in Janes defence, warships ifr and Navy lookout that we shouldn’t think in terms of any figure. We should have a threats based defence force. Not measured in percentage or billions but what do we need to ensure UK national sovereignty and defence of our national interest.
When we do that it’s
Ground based air defence
Counter drone
Counter cruise and ballistic missiles
Sub sea defence of critical offshore infrastructure
Naval power
Air power
Land power
With air and naval power sharing 40% of the defence budget each and the army 20%.
Simply adding more typhoons as tranche 4 (24-36 aircraft) ordering the planned for 27 additional F35Bs and planning for a final batch of 24-36 more
Put the Wedgetails order immediately back upto 5 aircraft and fund expansion to 7-9 to provide a resilient AWACs capability.
Order additional 6-7 Poseidon MPAs as the UKs maritime EEZ to patrol and monitor is vast.
The UK needs medium and short ranged GBAD to protect critical national infrastructure and defence sites this should be a layered approach with missiles backed up by guns backed up by direct energy weapons and ECM/ECCM
The navy needs to get more type 26 and type 31s out of those programmes. Ideally 2 more type 26s and 5 more type 31s. Bringing theRN back upto the premiere European naval power.
AUKUS needs pushing through to construction, ideally alongside final two dreadnought class boats and certainty of ordering 12+ attack subs is needed. Broadly agreed by anyone with half a brain that 7 astute class. Although highly effective is NOT enough to defeat a serious opponent like Russia, even with allied subs Europe is in theory outnumbered by Russia’s sub fleet.
Army all C2s toC3 standard. So that’s 200+ tanks.
Order more Apache Es. That’s an easy highly cost effective way to deliver hard hitting real world power.
Archer SPGs order 60 more and ensure stockpiles of munitions are adequate for continuous warfare.
The British army also needs 5-10,000 troops adding back onto it’s order of battle so we can sustain a deployed force around 40,000 strong (reinforced heavy division)
SDSR is key. Donald Trump might just of given us some hope HMG are going to be compelled to finally act and awaken from their slumber.
Looks good and is all feasible apart from the cost. The UK can only afford to make your proposal work over say, a ten-year span anything less could strangle some critical civilian programmes beyond what the public would accept. Trump might instigate a drawdown of US involvement in NATO however, a noticeable decline would take longer than his tenure thus exposing US policy to change under a new administration. The most important short-term upgrade for the UK forces is improving the Army with a speeded-up supply of Ajax, Boxer and additional CH3s from the remaining CH2s. These programmes are now in place but in the case of CH3, too few and the build rate of Ajax and Boxer, the latter could be increased by revisiting the UK/Germany production ratios.
Hi Mr Bell,
Nice to see a threat based approach, it’s something I have been very boring about for awhile now. I agree that the UK should focus on its maritime flank, given our geographic situation and history it makes sense that we build on the RN’s considerable experience which it has managed to just about maintain despite the awfully neglected state it and the other armed services find themselves in. It is quite the testament to their resilience.
I think the threat would make the numbers you propose realistic in the short(ish) term, longer term I think we are going to have to do much better. It all depends if we are successful in deterring a war in the short term. If not then your numbers might just be enough if the rest of Europe achieves similar improvements. It would all depend on how China gets involved. If China focuses on Taiwan in the short term then Europe, with improvements to the supply chain should be able to hold Russia at bay (nuclear threat excepted for the moment). However, if we are talking about the long term and China continues to develop its’ blue water naval capabilities then things could change significantly. China providing additional active in the form of maritime forces in the Atlantic while tying down the USN around Taiwan and we would be in trouble, real trouble.
What I am saying is that the threat is evolving in entirely the wrong direction for Western democracy because we are failing to adequately deter the CRINK (China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) group of nations. If that trend continues even in the face of increased defence spending in the West, then we will simply delay the inevitable. We need to effectively deter further escalation by the CRINK nations and encourage them back to the table, if not as friends, at least not as enemies. That will take an overwhelming level of deterrence – which I doubt will happen.
Cheers CR
That’s a nice shopping list. But the biggest problem apart from cost. Is people. That’s a huge amount of additional people we would require. And short of national mobilisation. We can’t force people to join up, and train them to use/maintain highly complex equipment.
If we pay people properly, look after them and make the job exciting it is all possible.
It is a project to manage we just need to figure out what we need to do and the costs.
TBH it would be cheaper to increase pilots pay and restrain than to train more and more of them. That way they don’t all wander off to commercial.
Ummm…er…did you really intend to state the sentence as “…increase pilots[‘] pay and restrain…” Restraining, rather than retaining RAF pilots, would definitely negatively impact morale. Recall that the last time that policy was in effect was during the Kamikaze period of WW II Pacific campaign. Sorry, couldn’t resist an attempt to interject some levity on a Friday…😉🙄
But don’t about 50k young people make applications to join the Army per annum?
Sounds good but my only concern is a lot of purchasing from the US there.
I know in some areas we have no choice currently.
Mr Bell, Can we add some new tracked and turreted IFVs to your list? It’s all good and necessary to think strategically but with some people saying 3 years and others saying 5 years for Russia to be a greater threat again, not to mention China and others already pressing some of these suggestions should and could be acted on right now and probably some are behind the scenes. As you suggest, for starters, some more of the same, just common sense. If all this threat stuff is really getting ever more real it needs to be seriously addressed by action and leadership from the top. So PM, Ministers, to your “action stations”, and…please!
Fair enough. I’d say a figure of £75-85 billion a year would do well for the defence budget.
Enough to rebuild our forces to pre-2010 levels.
Given that the point of nuclear weapons is deterrence, we could do that too.
Let’s look at the scenario. Russia can overwhelm Europe in any nuclear exchange, but it cannot prevent some form of retaliation.
Between the UK and France that’s three major population centres gone. However, the opening gambit would almost certainly involve one or more high-level bursts to blind Russian air defences with EMP. Russia is then left with a decision “Are the missiles heading towards us solely British and French?”
If an organisation sets a rule and you sign up to it, you have to abide by that rule.
The opposite. Europe loses a conventional war. Most European countries already rely heavily on US stocks of munitions. The US provided more 155mm ammo to Ukraine than all EU countries combined.
Spain, Portugal, there are still a ton of NATO members nowhere near the 2% spending requirement, with no plans to get there.
Europe can easily defend itself without America, what it can’t do is project large scale forces outside of the Euro Atlantic area, however it’s has a far greater power projection capability than either Russia or china so the big question is does Europe need large scale power projection capability.
If Europe were a single entity, yes.
However, there would be dithering amongst the European countries, some mobilising forces and fighting back immediately, others likely to sit back and avoid getting involved.
It’s this dithering that would afford Russia some early successes.
Yes Europe can beat Russia but it will still be messy.
None of the ditherers share a boarder with Russia so it won’t matter if Spain or Germany are slow to react. They can show up late and provide reserves.
until they don’t show up at all. Thats also very likely. Without the US, no one else can “enforce” article 5.
So just the JEF countries and Poland outnumber Russia in every conventional metric. That’s all that would be required if combined with Ukraine for a very easy victory against Russia. The JEF countries could grab the bulk of Russias fleet and its second biggest city in an afternoon.
The JEF countries will soon outspend the USA in terms of GDP on defence and they have far more will than anyone else when it comes to Russia.
I don’t know what else you would want in a fight.
An interesting think piece. I wonder if it would depend on China’s backing. China has remained neutralish over Ukraine, but in an all-out war between Russia and ENATO+C, would that remain true?
China has zero interest in Europe military. It would likely be very interested in teaming up with ENATO against Russia.
One thing European NATO is short on is nuclear weapons. If France and the UK move up to 500 each then that takes us to 1000 deployed weapons which is what china is aiming for and probably all Russia can afford long term. Big question is how long will the Donald allow us to swap Trident II missiles for replacements.
France have plans for a SCALP delivered nuke, fired from Rafale. They also I think still have some free fall bombs.
Would be a reasonable idea to add a tactical nuclear bomb and/ or storm shadow delivered version to the RAF. Wouldn’t need hundreds though. Just a few dozen would be enough to offer a response if Russia deployed tactical nukes in any future military adventure.
We all know once Putin has taken his territory from Ukraine he will re-equip, retrain, reinvest and go again. Possibly more of Ukraine or the Baltic states, although Finland might have something to say about that and could make any adventure into the Baltics really complicated and costly.
why a scalp delivered nuke when they already have the tactical nuke ASMP/A
FYI France has not had free fall nukes for many decades. For deterrence France relies on M51 (sub launched ICBM) and ASMP (a Rafale launched supersonic ramjet cruise missile)
Europe is also short on these things called “will”, “unity” and “sharp end capability”. The UK is not going to acquire 500 nuclear weapons because it has no will to do so and has no capability to ramp up like that when it comes to defence. The Royal Navy has seven nuclear attack submarines and under a best case scenario in 2045 it will have … seven nuclear attack submarines. The RAF has maybe 120 combat aircraft and, if it is lucky, it will certainly remain at that number because pilot/ground crew recruitment/retention is what it is and the money available for defence is what it is. There is no real will to go beyond that.
On paper Europe looks quite impressive. But when one considers that 30+ national governments control that capability and when one asks, “what is really available at the sharp end?” … then Europe looks more like a very damp squib.
… oh sorry, actually the UK has five nuclear attack submarines today … oh wait, of the five, three have not been to sea for months … it is when you start to look at the details the “squib reality” gets rather worse …
Well, America is disarming and lacks will, so it’s time for Europe to step up. Brave new world.
Existing UK government policy is intended to increase the nuclear weapon stockpile to 260 warheads, by a date certain. The DNE already consumes ~40% of MoD CAPEX budget. Please explain how the inventory will be doubled, given current projected defence budgets, which you have previously stated are at least adequate. Sorry, 2.3% of GDP does not compute, even by DoD’s notorious accounting standard.
The warhead increase is a small cost, the vast bulk of the CAPEX budget is on the SSBN’s, infrastructure and SSN (A). Our existing fleet of SSBN’s fully loaded can accommodate 512 warheads.
So the additional cost of warheads is fairly minimal when you already pay for the platforms to accommodate them.
Dreadnought class will have 12 tubes, and as Deep32 has observed, one tube is always reserved for a training round even on CASD patrol. Then there are practical limitations on the number of warheads/missile, while accommodating ABM countermeasures. Additionally only one RN SSBN on patrol, though a surge might be feasible, given sufficient warning.
There are at least two feasible routes for UK to increase weaps. load out: 1.) SLCM-N onboard SSN(A), and 2.) Gravity and/or various missile classes carried onboard F-35A, B-2, B-26 or Tempest a/c. Obviously, complex logistics and significant investment of coin of the realm required. Feasibility guaranteed, although not on a budget of 2.3% of GDP.
Er…B-21…🙄
Also give Poland and Romania tactical Nukes.
Probably if the Russians attacked a large country like Poland which has force in mass. However if they attacked a smaller nation who are reinforced by a small contingent from an Allied Nation anything could happen. The Russians if allowed the initiative could bite hard and the weak nature of EU democracies might shock an ally out of the war. Imagine if Russia attacked and in the first 3 days decimated a German Brigade and killed thousands of German soldiers. Could the Germans recover? Would there be the grit and political will at home to do so?
The bigger problem is that the real answer to that question is irrelevant. The relevant answer to that question is what Putin thinks is the outcome. Employing weak forces encourages conflict. The only counter to a serious military threat is to practice not just promise defence.
“speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far”.
Theodore Roosevelt
“Yell massively and carry a twig”
European Governments
This. Our cretins in power over several parliaments are clueless on this.
Our cretins in power are elected, and can only do what the electorate will permit. Rather than hurling insults at those willing to stand for office – God knows I couldn’t do it – maybe we should ask why proper investment in our defences is not a vote-winner, and why most of the media oppose any sort of rise in taxation to fund anything, not just defence, as an attack on prosperity or some such drivel. The media whinge about a tax ‘burden’, rather than an obligation on all citizens (and especially the wealthy) to contribute for the common good, while we in the UK pay far less tax on average than comparable European countries. So more money for defence can only come from cuts to services which have been crippled by 15 years of underinvestment. If our current government even floated the idea of putting a penny or two on income tax to properly fund defence, our right-wing media would utterly crucify them.
IM,
One of a relatively few personally favorite POTUS. 😊👍👍
It is time to get serious/realistic about UK defence spending, we ( and I include Europe) can no longer take for granted that the US will have our back.
Our governments always do the same in peacetime, they will sit back until war is declared upon us then its a panic to catch up
“It is time to get serious/realistic about UK defence spending, we ( and I include Europe) can no longer take for granted that the US will have our back.”
Haha, the aristocratic pedantry is outstanding.
That is literary the reason for USA attitude, UK+UE not investing on defence means precisely you cannot anymore be counted to be a back for them.
Pres Trump really has changed the converstaion in UKDJ. Has he changed it in No 10, or any other leading European cabinet?
Let’s hope so. An unreliable ally is no ally at all. And as for Vance’s bullshit this afternoon… well, you couldn’t make it up.
Apparently a US correspondent pointed out to the European media that the VP’s speech was entirely for ‘domestic consumption’. So not entirely appropriate for an international conference, but we live in new times.
Cheers CR
👍Exactly!
Surprised no one has considered the economic element. This is the real weakness of Europe right now. What would happen to stock markets if Russia even sabre rattled invading one of the Baltic states?
Putin doesn’t need to destroy countries militarily, he can use it to wreck Europe economically.
Just look at what is happening in US politics right now, looks very much like a slow-moving coup where the main players are now very much pro Putin.
If you cannot defeat a country militarily, then defeat it by shaking up its internal politics.
Totally right and nobody noticed Algeria just bought russian jets. That implies trump gave a relief to algeria regarding caatsa which is noticeable in a post Ukraine invasion era. The disconnection of us vis à vis Europe is speeding up.
Im not sure you can even call it politics, its a plain coup on the USA, MAGA is out to crush sensible people, there is no other explanation for the people he’s picked, RFK Jnr is a plain clear example Trump is toying with the people of the USA
Russia isn’t a strategic enemy of the US. China is. The US is pivoting away from European conflicts and war, Europe has no excuse not to be able to defend itself.
Chris, China is enemy?? There is a Quad against China but no Quad, or a China Nato type against US. There are hundreds of warplanes and warships within an hour of attacking China, but Chinese military is on the opposite side of the globe to US soil. There are constant hate and threats from US, none from China to US. When Tik tok was banned, ordinary Americans used Red Note and found that ordinary Chinese are not The Enemy. But Twitter, Fox News, Facebook, Murdoch Media Empire endlessly repeat that China is enemy, so, believe every thing from the US
Ah, I see. You’re one of those. How’s the weather in Beijing?
you’re confusing being pro-putin with not giving a damn about Ukraine, or thinking that is is outrageous that Western Europe does not care about it’s own military capabilities (i mean, the german air force still operates tornados, and its army has less than 70k men!!), which have been -this can’t be over-emphasised – deliberately weakened.
why does WE not care? for two reasons, and both are an insult to America and the notion of a West capable and willing to defend itself: because they exploit America’s position and its relationship with its Armed Forces and the fact that the USA cannot allow itself to not give a damn about what would happen if the world’s foremost military power wasn’t capitalist and democratic.
by the way, ukraine preserving its political autonomy is not vital to us. it really isn’t. don’t bs me.
if it were so, we would be there fighting alongside them, which we aren’t, and which we will not do, despite the trucullent balderdash currently being spewed by every european politician and bureacrat.
If UKR is that important to us, if Russia will invade WE after it has squashed Ukraine, why aren’t we there now? Why aren’t Macron, Scholz, Putin and Tusk not whispering about sending troops to Ukraine?
ukraine lost the ability to break russia a year and half ago – it is now all about killing men and replacing them (well, russia can afford it; ukr cannot). perhaps it could have done something miraculous if the west hadn’t dithered (look at how many men russia used at the beginning; a signal that its aim was to come in, destroy and occuppy and city or two, break the gov by either forcing it to quit or placing puppets in charge of it, and leave).
remember that the 1st thing “we” did was invite Zelenskly to exile himself! how many times have ukrainian requests for more and more sophisticated weaponry been rejected or hindered by the need to discuss?
i honestly do not know what trump’s endgame is. and whoever says otherwise is lying.
for instance, take a look at the alleged offer trump recently made to china and russia about reducing each’s nuclear weapons, apparently with the aim of reducing the pentagon’s budget.
if this is true, i think it is logical to deduce that trump is very much interested in tackling the deficit and debt (which i welcome because we the day will come when America’s economic might won’t be capable of handling its debt).
everyone spare me any displays of TRS, please.
reg the question, could we cope with a russian invasion (russia invading WE is an outlandish scenario)? i think we could. could we sustain it, keep russia away? no. we lack everything: manpower, certain weapon systems, the industry, and so on.
could russia even invade “us”? come on.
i am sickened by every politician/expert/bureacrat whose words about the war are not sustained by consistent actions.
simply put: if you tell me that russian’s aggresion constitutes an existential threat to us, i demand that we fight alongside ukraine, for if we do not stop a genuinely existential threat, we will be defeated.
if we are not willing to do do, do not tell me that we will “do all we can” and that “russia will come after the rest of us if we do not stick by Ukraine”.
What do you have against Tornadoes? The US still operates plenty of fast jets older than those. As for the rest of what you say: yes.
they’re unfit for a war against russia and china.
in germany’s case, they’re an example, not of an attachment to the weapon itself (like America and the A-10), but of germany’s unwillingness to supply its AF with the equipment it needs.
reg, say, america using older planes, yes it is true, but look at how and against whom they use them!
the question here is about possessing weapon systems capable of challenging russia and china.
Well he’s already wrecked the Russian one, his forcing of Russian banks to loan money to armament manufacturers has placed the Russian financial system on the brink of a collapse…
European NATO members have a total population of over 500m excluding Turkey. Many of the newer members in the East have experience of Russian occupation and in some cases rebelled against it. Without undermining the alliance ( any more than Trump seems willing to risk) re organizing NATO into separate divisions, East and West, with a European HQ run by Europeans might help to reduce operational reliance on the USA. Europe would be forced to acknowledge its areas of weakness and try to address them. More attention could be focused on what forces each member should contribute than on some totemic percentage of GDP. Properly co-ordinated, this should not need vast and unrealistic budget increases but only modest rises spent more effectively.
Whether the combined power of the nuclear weapons of France and Britain ( plus whatever freefall US weapons remain in service with Germany and others) is sufficient deterrence to an increasingly aggressive Russia is a separate question. I have never been convinced that a US president would risk all out nuclear war in the event of a nuclear attack on a distant NATO ally. But with Russia having increased its short/intermediate range nuclear weapons, Britain and France might have to reassess the adequacy of their capabilities.
If basing on what each European nato member should bring to the table, and that nation using their defense budget to prioritise that area, are we miving towards an eu defence force?
Ie, if uk focused on anti sub warfare as that is what we are good at and positioned to do, less funding would go into a uk army as Poland / Germany had that covered. This would then mean uk forces less able to operate independently
I think that’s the issue you’d come to in the situation where you put countries into silo’s of what they do well. Although it could be done and still retain a smaller expeditionary capability? Not sure where we’d deploy to independently aside from one of the over-seas territories.
Peter S.,
Absolutely concur that both France and UK should reassess future nuclear weapon requirements. Current inventories are not a credible, independent deterrent against probably CRINK predations.
“…probable…” 🙄
They are certainly not scaled for counter force strike in the way the USA is, although Britain and France have more than sufficient weapon art for a counter value strike against Russia or China. However 8 SSBN’s with 16 missiles a peace is an immense capability in anyones book just need to fully arm all their missiles.
that’s something I, a brit who is not at all interested in witnessing the federalisation of the EU (i spend most of my time in the EU, mind), fear and ruminate about quite often.
notice that a great deal of people (and their voices are heard and disseminated without someone saying no to them) are adamant that the best way, the only way, to counter russia is to create an european army, that “Europe” – the EU – cannot speak for itself if it does not have an army – as if Europe’s problem was lack of unity, rather than lack of will to spend money on weapons and soldiers!
russia’s invasion has been the sweetest of gifts to the federalists. that and covid.
the EU is planning on spending hundreds of billions on AI, is it not? why not spend 100B on buying weapons systems?
this is why I metaphorically roll my eyes every time (i have done so many a time in the last 48 hours) someone says that out existence is at risk because of Putin.
if that is so, where are the “things” we need to defeat that threat?
If things really heated up UK could manufacture a free fall bomb very quickly.
We have the world stockpile of plutonium and certainly know how to make them.
Well Ukraine is holding its own pretty well against Russia, i’m guessing we could too
The Ukraine war has seriously diminished Russian reserves, but I think it would be foolish to write them off as finished.
They still have a large air force and submarine fleet. Most of their military industry has not been touched by the war, plus the fact they have the industrial/military backup of Iran, North Korea and some support from China too.
If we fight any one of these countries we must assume we are in a struggle against all of them.
In a near-peer war of attrition the determining factors will be:
Initial Force and reserve sizes
Political will to fight and keep fighting despite casualties (including sensitivity to world opinion)
Ability to quickly produce / repair and move equipment to the front
Ability to Quickly recruit /train and replace personnel killed or injured
They have a large Airforce in the same way Pakistan has a large Airforce, lots of jets but questionable how many are effective or even working. They failed to gain air superiority against a country that had no Airforce.
That says it all.
Yet in the last clash over Kashmir (2019) Pakistan shot down 2 Indian jets in air to air combat.
There has been very little air to air combat over UKR as each side respects/fears the other sides GBAD capabilities.
However Russia uses its airforce for many long-range stand-off missile attacks,
it is a capability that they can easily threaten other countries with.
Also, they have been using a lot of glide bombs to hit UKRs front line defences,
without which there would have been a lot less territorial gains for them.
There is nothing I would like to see more than Russia in retreat or so badly defeated that they can no longer threaten anyone.
but we are not there yet.
fairly certain Europe could stop Russia in Poland, not so sure about the Baltics.
ie Poland has enough to thwart initial attack while reinforcementsmake their way.
However due to a long and convoluted decision making process, and insufficient logistical capability, it would be diffcult to mobilize mass quickly enough to the Baltic state. On their own i cannot imagine the Baltics could hold long enough even with the token few thousand Nato trip wire force in country.
my 2 cents
Is it President Trump or President Musk calling the shots? Either way the US is appearing to not be a trusted ally for at least the next four years and I wouldn’t count on anything from them.
The UK and Europe need to massively rearm and not in 5 years or through the lifetime of the current Parliament, but now.
Putin must be laughing his head off.
He certainly wants dividends for his investment in the current US gov.
It should be able to.
It wont be able to.
France, Germany and Spain will make a ton of excuses not to throw their hats fully into the ring. Heavens knows what Italy would do. We all know the UK, Poland and a few valiant lesser powers such as the Netherlands will be left holding the baby.
Trump and the US are fully justified in their approach and attitude; for far too long the defence of Europe has been left to them while successive governments in various European nations, the UK included, cut their defence spending to the bone.
400 billion investment in Defense by France until 2030.. you need to source your info better
and you need to pay attention to french politics and keep in mind the following: macron is despised by perhaps 75% of the electorate (macronism has died); a left-wing coalition that includes every far-left variant conceivable won the most recent election and every info out there suggests that it won’t collapse anytime soon.
400b? seems as credible as Scholz’s 2022 plan.
it’s already been signed and approved..and the budget has already gone up
it won’t be followed through, mate, not without some deep cuts and postponements.
france’s finances are in dire shape and what explains such a state is connected to groups to whom the anti-macron groups owe their ascension and electoral relevance.
All of America or just the USA?
Whist I agree that Donald Trump is giving the the existing Western political norms a serious shaking when it comes to defence he is faced with a genuine problem, as FormerUSAF posted a few weeks ago, the US can no longer fight on two fronts and China is the US main competitor.
So which way does the US turn? The UK, France and Italy have in recent years started to send carrier strike groups out to the Pacific region highlighting that Europe does indeed see China has a real threat, while this development is undoubtedly welcome in Washington, it probably confuses the decision space for them. Europe is something of a conundrum, huge economic potential but under performs and tribal as hell. The US needs Europe although it is very fair to say Europe needs the US more when it comes to defence or more accurately deterrence. It is also fair to say that Europe is persistently under spent on
defence, preferring to rely on the US deterrent capability, which the US has been openly complaining about for decades. Trump, I believe, is the US saying enough is enough.
However, for me the most worrying thing about the current situation is the deployment and active participation of North Korean troops in the Ukrainian War. Their practical impact is small, but the symbolism is huge. This is the first time that two members of the CRINK (China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) grouping have ever supported each in a war in Europe or against the West and it sets a new and dangerous precedent that should worry all of us because it opens the door to scenarios in which NATO could have to face off against two or more CRINK nations. So we could face a situation in which a China Taiwan crisis draws off US forces from Europe allowing Russia and North Korea to mount an attack on another former Soviet state e.g. Estonia.
Given that North Korea has such huge numbers under arms they could conceivably generate sufficient numbers, that when coupled to Russia’s capability even in its much reduced state, could rapidly overwhelm such a small country as Estonia before NATO could mount a realistic defence. Estonia would be a challenge to defend given its geographical position with the sea on two sides, Russia on one side and the Latvia to the south being the only friendly land border.
Such an overt attack could be preceded with multiple coordinated grey area attacks designed to distract eNATO countries and weaken there ability and resolve to resist and respond to the attack. All of which posses very real challenges for eNATO both before any conflict, should they deploy a large deterrent standing force into Estonia, for example, and if Estonia was quickly overrun would eNATO be willing to mount a counter attack to free Estonia and would they risk a flanking action across Russian territory, especially if the US nuclear deterrent could no longer be counted on?
Such a scenario is no longer as wild a threat as it was just a few short years ago. The CRINK grouping is developing into something more cohesive or at least more aligned in their thinking. Clearly it is not an alliance anything like the same as NATO or eNATO hence their continued grey area campaigns against the West.
What my scenario above illustrates is that it is no longer sensible to talk about Russia in isolation, Russia is part of something else, something that is not a true alliance with clear objectives, conditions and responsibilities placed on members. That very vagueness makes anticipating that groupings’ actions far more difficult and in the current environment, far more dangerous.
The West’s deterrent posture is no longer working as it once did, the Ukraine War proves that. So Europe needs to step up and do its’ share of the heavy lifting and that may include an increased European Nuclear Deterrence.
The UK will need to play a crucial role in that given its geographical position, it is an island nation and its’ nuclear power status. Our most powerful contribution would be to provide the backbone to Europe’s maritime flank with naval and air forces able to fill the gaps left be the USN which might well need to redeploy to the Far East. That will take a hugely bigger navy and air force than we currently poses. Most controversially need may well need to contribute to developing a meaningful European nuclear deterrent alongside Europe’s only nuclear power, France. (Note: Other European nations have the ability to launch (US supplied and controlled???) nuclear weapons.)
Spending as a proportion of GDP is no longer meaningful for the West. Have we collectively deterred the CRINK grouping? That is the only question that matters these days, and as I state above, the Ukraine War and their increasingly bold grey area attacks, suggest that we are no longer deterring them from taking ever greater risks. That is the road to war and that is why even some senior UK politicians have openly stated that they believe we are now in a new Pre-War Era.
If we want peace, we need to take action, now!
Cheers CR
The world will get very stroppy if/when some European nations decide to develop atomic weapons.
Alas, if the USA withdraws that atomic umbrella some European nations feel that it is appropriate to develop their own.
When they do so will many others, South Korea, Japan, etc.
You could well be right, but South Korea is already considering developing its own nuclear weapons in light of the North’s recent behaviour, especially its treaty with Russia and move into Europe which Seoul sees as a serious threat to its own long term security.
However, I was thinking in terms of the UK and France having ultimate responsibility for Europe’s nuclear umbrella as we have experience developing and operating such systems. Setting such a construct up would be politically challenging but not impossible. A clear and present danger would hopefully concentrate minds. The first problem would be getting the UK and France to cooperate on the missiles and submarines, then there would be a need to separate national and alliance capabilities in a manner that would reassure allies that they do have some control over weapon use, and finally eNATO would need to pay for the eNATO controlled capability… Lots of opportunity for argument, sadly.
Cheers CR
CR,
As per usual, excellent posts. Curious re geopolitical/defence policies of various eNATO countries. Baltic states, Nordic countries, Poland, and perhaps one or two other members (Netherlands?) apparently comprehend the gravity of current events. The rest of eNATO? Apparently oblivious to external events. Do the populations/political classes serious believe the CRINKs will be satisfied w/ merely conquering Eastern Europe? Surely there is at least one politician of Churchillian stature, capable of guiding the UK into a serious rearmament programme, as the storm clouds rapidly gather? The only possible silver lining in current political events will be that eNATO is largely roused from political/defence stupor into aggressive rearmament programmes. 🤔🤞
Hello Mate,
You ask a very interesting question and I don’t all the answers by any means so this is just my limited reading of what is going on.
The Baltic States, Nordic countries and Poland are frontline states and feel the threat directly that is obviously the trivially easy answer. So to add a little more detail Norway, for example, has faced Russian ground forces crossing their joint boarder in the high north for sometime. Accidental boarder incursions can easily happen as the boarder is unmarked, but in recent years the incursions have increased dramatically suggesting an element of intent in their actions. The RM have encountered Russian forces on some of their deployments apparently. It was reported on here a few years ago. As such Norway has been feeling the pressure for sometime and has decided to act. Finland and Sweden I think is another easy answer, as neutrals in the Baltic they were particularly vulnerable to a Ukraine style attack. Sweden at least has had Russia sub-sea incursions happening for years. For both of them Article 5 must like a very reassuring best option. Indeed Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a serious set back for Putin. Poland has recent negative memories of Russian dominance. Their response, to be honest, came as a surprise to me at least but is entirely understandable.
Germany is a complicated case. Initially the announced a huge increase in defence spending. However, it was challenged in the courts as unconstitutional. Apparently there is a clause that limits how level of national debt and the boast in defence spending would take them well above the limit so the Gvernment had to row back on the increase. They were in the process of trying to get around the issue when the government collapsed. The Baltic States are even more vulnerable than the Nordic States as they are small in area, have sizeable ethnic Russian populations and frankly are a bit out on a limb geographically, especially Estonia and Latvia. They are obvious next targets if Putin is not adequately deterred, hence those countries stance on defence is entirely understandable. Also, Russia has be deploying grey area warfare against in the Baltic Region so all of those NATO countries around the Baltic are feeling the heat and have some experience of Russia’s rogue nation tendencies.
France has a huge national debt and a population / unions not afraid to take on the politicians when they have a grievance. Their financial situation is even worse that the UK’s… so little room to manoeuvre. Also, I think the French like the Brits, Spanish and Portuguese feel they are sufficiently distant from the troubles in Eastern Europe that there is no threat, although there are small signs that that might be changing in the UK at least. Holland seems to be bucking the trend in that regard as far as Western Europe is concerned as they have announced that they are going to add two more frigates their fleet in response to the threat from Russia. Two frigates does not sound like a lot in the great scheme of things, but I believe it represents a 30% increase in the frigate fleet and the first time their fleet has expanded since the early ’70’s. Italy is anther country that seems to be able to deliver impressive capabilities for their navy on a limited budget and is developing a genuine light carrier capability with F35B aircraft. Not sure about their intentions regarding increasing their defence budget but the signs are good.
The situation in the UK is well documented on here, so I won’t bore you and everyone else detailing it all here, not that I could… Hopefully, there will be some good news in the not too distant future for defence spending in the UK – it can’t come quick enough.
There are at least some good signs that Europe is awaking from its foolishness.
Cheers for now,
CR
CR,
Many thanks for the extensive response to my query. Especially appreciate the additional context re the Dutch, French, German, Italian and Norwegian perspectives. The Norwegian incident(s) are troubling; do not recall any media coverage of incursions on this side of the Pond. Truly hope for favorable results from the SDR, because it is virtually certain the Donald will deemphasize Uncle Sugar’s role in routine NATO affairs. 🤔🤞
In reality as soon as a Sino US war kicks off and the U.S. is to distracted to support South Korean, North Korea is going to go for Seoul, I would imagine Russia will probably attempt some form of more politically based little green men opperation against the Baltic states, I’m not sure it would go all out, it would nibble to try and keep ENATO politically split on what to do. I would also imagine Iran will take the opportunity to collapse Jordan.
The NPT is now a joke anyway…it’s entirely unenforceable and there are a number of states that are now essentially not officially nuclear powers but are quite open they are gained nuclear weapons or will gain nuclear weapons.
North Korea 50-90 warheads, likely around 160 by 2030 and has ICBMs and IRBMs
Pakistan 150:warhead, potentially growing to 250 by the late 2020s has MRBMs moving to IRBMs
Indian 170 warheads, with the full nuclear triad, including ICBMs and SLBMs
Isreal 100-400 warheads ( likely 400) believed to have the full nuclear triad ( but only sub launched cruise missiles not ballistic) has ICBMs…assumption of wide range of targets related to Sampson option)
So essentially half the nuclear powers in the world are in breach of NPT…so no one will really have a leg to stand on of Germany or Poland decide to have a nuclear weapons program.
There is one major thing lacking in Europe – unity of command.
Even 20 years ago, the European part of NATO could have acted alone, at least operationally. The UK was seen as number two in NATO and other countries would have easily operated under British Operational Command as a lead nation. And I just don’t see anyone accepting any other country unanimously either.
Sadly now, that is probably not the case. The British military is not seen as a framework nation int he way it was and although done for very different reasons, I suspect BREXIT probably has harmed our image in Europe as a leading power.
When the US turns up, there is not a question of who is in command. It’s clear to everyone else.
Good point, Bob, very good point.
NATO is an alliance of the willing. If eNATO, or even just one member, is unwilling to accept the UK as the leading European power then who replaces us in the command seat? Que the arguments when you least need them.
Cheers CR
Yes I think we could, certainly against Russia in it’s present force structure, and provided defence spending increases to sensible levels, well into the future.
However, who is our friend and who is hostile is a line that is becoming blurred. Taking into account the trade and economic war against allies that the US is now embarking on, not to mention the expansionist threats against friendly countries, based on the inane, toddler like rantings of the liar in chief in the White House, America canon longer be considered a reliable ally and is actually becoming closer to a banana republic. Putin has an enormous hold and influence on Trump, he is completely enthralled by the Russian leader., and is as likely to relay vital NATO secrets and operational details to the Kremlin or give them to his girlfriend Musk to broadcast over his platform X. What’s to prevent him from tearing up ITAR or similar to ENATO if Russia began showing signs of military build up on European borders? He’s already conceded everything to Putin as he throws allies under the bus.in the wrong and mistaken belief that despite spending billions on supporting the US in middle Eastern wars with thousands of casualties we still somehow owe MAGA Americans something.
You talk much sense. The time is rapidly coming for us to disengage from the United States as it descends into the abyss, or we risk being pulled in after them. Perhaps it was always going to be this way. We are a European nation.
Let’s hope we never fine out .On defence spending the US government is right it’s time for Europe to put more money in the pot .For us Brits 2.5% has always been laughable no way can I see HMG doing 5%, if lucky 3% maybe but with this government it’s not very hopeful 😟
Yes 5%, phase in over a decade. Paying for new equipment like T32, CH3 replacement etc, beyond 2030. Prioritising procurement over the period.
NO. Next question?
It’s not really could Europe defend itself…yes the core European nations could..if Russia tried to invade the core eastern/central European nations it would be chewed up and spat out…the question is can European protect its geostrategically exposed periphery…eg the three Baltic states..and I would say the answer to is possibly not…they are isolated have very large ethic Russian populations that could act as an politically destabilising insurgency, this would make it likely that these three states could fall to sub kinetic or little green men actions….
If one of the Baltic states were to fall the only real way to get it back would probably be the reduction of Russia as a nation and I’m not sure that’s something European nations would ever sign up to doing.
Personally I think this is one of those questions that are both reductionist and miss the point of greatest risk…..the reductionist argument of splitting the potential enemies of the west up into individual nations that certain other nations need to deal with is profoundly unwise and the mistake that Trump has fallen into…what Trump and other reductionist fail to understand is the truly catastrophic existential wars to destruction ( the ones we really need to worry about) are not between individual nations but the major paradigms of the time..be they religious or political movements..because nations generally go to war for a specific goal and then negotiate, when one of these large catastrophic wars between paradigms occur it’s far less about a single goal of one nation and more about the eradication of the opposite paradigm ( political or religious). What is building now is not about Russia and Europe or china and the U.S., Jewish nation and Muslim nations, North Korea or South Korea..it’s about the authoritarian vs the western liberal and its now on a slow roll to world wide ignition..the fuse was lit by the war on terror, Putin and his near aboard policy, china and its 9 dash line and reunification policy and the religious extremists in the levant . So the fundamental large geopolitical question is can the liberal west beat the authoritarian world in a years long world war spanning every continent, ocean and sea ? That’s the true crunch question of the 21st C.
But lets play the reductionist game and pit Europe against Russia…
First the raw strengths and weaknesses
Europe
Total wealth 100,000 billion dollars ( 22%of the planets wealth)
GDP 26,500 billion dollars
Population 730 million
Russia
Total wealth 4,300 billion dollars ( .9% of the planets wealth)
GPD 2,200 billion dollars
Population 140 million
The simple fact is the core war fighting requirements of money, industry and manpower are around about 6 to 10 to 1 in favour of European nations
The only advantage Russia has is political will, as an authoritarian regime its not so at the beck and call of an electorate and it’s cohesive vs Europe which is fragmented politically..
So this mean Russia is never going to go to toe to with Europe in a peer war on its own as it would loss.
What does it them want..well we know this because it’s all linked into the near abroad policy of Russia, the political control of the states that surround Russia…for Russia that reallly requires the Baltics and Ukraine..,so that’s what he will go for, Ukraine he has decided to grind down and the lack of political will in the west to stop this has been profound over the last 10 years. He therefore knows that in the Baltic states he can win by playing against European weakness..political will and unity, he will not do anything so stupid as a massive land invasion as that will just play into developing unity and strength. He will use the fact the Baltic states have large Russia populations to play games of creating political turmoil..if a nation looks like it’s going to fall internationally what can the rest of Europe do or want to do…civil wars are nasty to be involved in…
? Should the last sentence read…fall internationally…or fail internally? Concur w/ your general thesis. Unfortunately, only certain NATO countries apparently apprehend the gravity of the threat of the CRINK alliance, which may eventually become a more powerful entity than the Axis powers ever achieved.
It was 5% during the cold war with a smaller population and GDP and it should be again.
The wafflers and neoliberalism have had their time in the sun. You’ve failed end of. Time to start re-arming BIG time.
No arguments from me 👍
Pour la France, usa là ou pas là, ça ne change rien !
La France est assez indépendante, cependant ce n’est pas la même histoire pour l’Europe et le Royaume Unis, ils sont très dépendant des USA, je ne suis pas sur que même si les USA partent les européens prendrait leurs destins en main !
Pour cela il faut plus de budget pour les armées, il faudrait une moyenne européenne de 3.5%. C’est beaucoup mais comme dit le célèbre proverbe de Végèce “qui veut la paix prépare la guerre” !
The following is from Goggle Translate:
For France, whether it is US or not, it doesn’t change anything!
France is quite independent, however it is not the same story for Europe and the United Kingdom, they are very dependent on the USA, I am not sure that even if the USA left the Europeans would take their destinies in hand!
For that we need more budget for the armies, we would need a European average of 3.5%. It is a lot but as the famous proverb of Vegetius says “he who wants peace prepares for war”!
My reply:
Not sure how independent from the US France actually is because if Europe falls, so do we all.
A part from that, I would agree with what you say.
Cheers CR
PS. First time I have ever used Goggle Translate 🙂
Google translated accurately. The de Gaulle inspired distancing of France from the USA and it’s withdrawal from the NATO command structure was part of the drive for independent capability especially nuclear. It was delusional. Few countries have depended so much on American ( and British) support as France over the last 120 years. Saved by British support in 1914/6 from a repeat of the Franco Prussian war; saved by American intervention from 1917; liberated by US and British empire forces in 1944; received 80% funding from the USA to try to regain control of Vietnam;
With its history of military failure, France needs NATO more than most.
Saved by the British in 1914-16, you are not a history major i take it.. the UK joined WW1 because of a pact it had Belgium just so happened that most fighting took place on French soil. I would also remind you that the Allied armies of WW1 were all under French command led by Foch. France needs Nato perhaps, it needs more European unity for sure. Definitely doesn’t need flip floppers like brits who are as they have always been, subservient to the US. I mean your army alone is dismal looking, stemming from years of policy that relies on the US
We’re talking about today in 2025, we can go way back without that.
The USA is one of the most important partners for France from a military and economic point of view but it is quite relative compared to the United Kingdom. The independence of a nation does not mean no longer interacting with the USA but interacting as equals, France is not there but it remains very independent compared to other countries which rely on the USA for their defense, and that is a big problem!
Can we get Mr Bell voted into the House Of Lords as a Bi-partisan Key advisor to the Prime Minister.
Would get around the Party Political BS.
My usual theme on here is basically to keep UK spending on defence in the UK for a wider benefit to society. More than ever, there is now an opportunity for the UK to start thinking along these lines – certainly for the medium-to-longer term. We need to go back to developing original IP/design and manufacture of heavy armour (MBTs etc.), aircraft, and develop the new technologies: directed energy, quantum radar, space defence, cyber, AI etc.
Rather than line the pockets of the Americans, the Germans, French, Spanish etc., the UK should focus on developing a UK defence/strategic assets and resources mind-set with a suitable industrial strategy, in what is basically a National re-arming in order to prevent a large-scale war when Putin re-builds/re-arms and/or China kicks off.
That ship has long sailed, your defense industry is virtually non existent
That is sooooo not true.
We have all of the high tech bits.
Personally making tanks and armoured vehicles isn’t where we need to focus.
I’m mean we made T45, ASTUTE, QEC, T26 and redesigned T31 and can build Typhoon….oh and we have a very large jet engine manufacturer….missile manufacture is on the uptick…..I’m not seeing the negativity TBH.
Most of these are ITAR free?
partly true for army systems, (although Ajax and Boxer are still built in UK). Design and production are not insurmountable obstacles to setp up in wartime. ie you redirect auto manufacturing factories to produce APC, Tanks etc…. really not the hardest tech to develop. Obviously not done overnight, but could be done in months if mandated by government as a national priority.
furthermore there is plenty of competitive UK industry and know how in aviation and naval, not to mention cyber and space.
obviously there is room for improvement and investment, but that holds true everywhere, even in the US (ie shipbuilding)
“We need to go back to developing original IP/design and manufacture of heavy armour (MBTs etc.), aircraft, and develop the new technologies: directed energy, quantum radar, space defence, cyber, AI etc.”
We already do make these things, it’s the quantity that’s the issue.
Russia isn’t coming.
Simple as that.
We are seeing the limit of their reach now.
Consider they have the largest and best equipped army in Europe. And they can’t do much.
Stephanie, Russia has been exposed as less than a 2nd rate military. The limit of their reach not much more than 100km beyond the border. Genghis Khan and the golden horde in less than 3 years on horse back would have gotten to Portugal. Ukraine has no navy and easily beat the Russian navy. Ukraine has destroyed most of the new Russian equipment and Russia now uses WW2 tanks and guns. The Russian economy is on the verge of collapse but the pal, old Donnie gave up. Everyone complained that this is a Chamberlain type of appeasement but it really is, another failed Domino Theory that caused wars in Korea and Vietnam – – communism in those countries did not collapse the whole world. But social media is too powerful, we believe anything Facebook, Fox News, Twitter, Murdoch Media Empire lies to us.
Allison asks a confounding question. But who is Europe defending against? Russia after 3 years advanced only roughly 60 km into Ukraine. So, other than common border fights, the incompetent Russian army would take a century or two to get to Paris. They will need to use horse and buggy as they have run out of WW2 and WW1 tanks and trucks. And China is just as incapable, China more likely will bombard Europe with affordable, high tech electric cars, which of course is a National Security threat. The biggest threat to Europe today is the Orange Imperialist who demands Greenland and $500 billion of Ukrainian minerals. The definite threat to Europe is drastic climate change, the recession becoming a depression which usually starts wide wars, and demographics. Demographic experts expect Muslims to be majorly by the end of the century and overall population decline in almost every European countries. US is roughly 59 % white but UK is at 76% by in large, which probably is the main cause for Maga, but Maga is gaining every where. Mr Allison needs to ask other questions too.
You were talking perfect sense, and then you went and spoilt it by going on about Muslims again.
“…by the way, ukraine preserving its political autonomy is not vital to us…”
Nonsense, the ruZZians will use a captured Ukraine’s resources and mobilised people as cannon fodder for an attack on the rest of Europe!
P.s I don’t believe you are former BA soldier, too defeatist!
A major cornerstone of Trump’s second term is brutal honesty, public transparency, warts and all. He’s been saying for years that he wasn’t happy. The truth is after 80 years of helping to keep the peace in Europe Americans have grown tired of spending so much money only to be disrespected and called dumb yanks. Suckers. They don’t see the value in it and wonder why Europe and the UK can’t defend their continent without America. Europe also has social welfare programmes that cost trillions, programs that Americans could only dream of. Americans feel that they are paying for these socialistic programs by proxy because many NATO countries literally won’t pay, refuse to pay, for their own defence. Well this time its real, Vance has conveyed exactly how Americans feel today and we should fully expect America to depart NATO and let Europe lead it. Canada may stay or not. America doesn’t care much anymore. Europe should have heeded these warnings way back in 2016 but no, for some reason they ignored this thinking it was an abberation. Well here we are and its real now. Suggest everyone take a good hard look in the mirror and decide what to do without America, for the first time in 80 years.
Propaganda, fear and ideology makes people stupid.
Evil can be reasoned with stupidity by its nature can’t.
❤️☮️
This is nonsense to talk of a % of GDP as that rises and in most countries sometimes falls. The Reverend Starmer needs to break the habit of a lifetime and be HONEST. Tell the British people he is increasing taxes to spend on defence, he intends to massively increase the reserves and boost their numbers by increasing the tax free rewards, force state schools to introduce cadet forces and tell the country to prepare to grow up and gird their loins and if they don’t want to then the website Babel is a good place to start learning Russian. Be HONEST for once! We are under total threat economic and military from Russia China Iran and now the new great satan USA. Trump is launching economic warfare against so what next?
A pretty silly question. They answer is obviously no – as has been brutally rubbed in to our face over the last week.