Growing concerns about the U.S. relationship with NATO allies—fueled by Donald Trump’s overtures to Russia and attacks on Ukraine and Denmark—have spurred European officials to biweekly meetings about replacing American defense goods, according to a European diplomat with knowledge of the discussions. But those increasingly intense discussions have highlighted that it wouldn’t be easy, fast, or cheap.
“Nobody actually wants to be autonomous. They all want to keep the ties with the Americans. Always have and always will,” the diplomat said.
French president Emmanuel Macron described the urgency of the situation in March: “I want to believe that the United States will remain at our side. But we must be ready if that is not the case.”
No U.S. representatives have participated in the meetings thus far, according to the diplomat. But the engagements are helping to flesh out details for increased cooperation—such as which nations can produce which arms—and have led to four higher-level meetings between European leaders about joint weapons development, support for Ukraine, and other “big-picture” questions, the diplomat said.
In March, the EU published a 22-page white paper on closing capability gaps. The plan, agreed to by European Union members, includes a joint commitment to spend 800 billion euro by 2030 on joint defense capabilities via a 150-billion-euro loan instrument, debt sold on capital markets, and other vehicles.
Big increases in European defense spending align with what Trump has been urging since his first administration: more European spending on defense. It’s an idea NATO leaders have also been championing as vital to the strength of the alliance, and something many Eastern European countries have long called for.
Former President Joe Biden’s national security team saw bigger European defense budgets as a win for U.S. defense manufacturers, since European countries supporting Ukraine would need to purchase at least some equipment from U.S. defense firms—and that support would not come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. A plan to continue support for Ukraine with vital U.S. weapons that took shape in the final weeks of the last administration was conceived as a way to give Trump an easy political win and continue to support the country fending off invasion. But the Oval Office spectacle with Ukraine’s president in February, combined with recent White House rhetoric on Denmark, and the decision to briefly halt U.S. intelligence sharing with Ukraine, have fractured European leaders’ trust in American leadership, the diplomat said: “Those have absolutely been turning points.”
The fracturing relationship has also weakened the allure of U.S. defense goods, as other nations worry that the White House, or individual defense contractors like Elon Musk, can change military outcomes based on personal political or financial incentives, the diplomat said. “What if there’s a conflict in Europe and the same happens but for France, Germany, Denmark, or Norway? ‘Hey guys, if you don’t make a deal, there’s no more spare parts for your F-35s or no more ammo for Patriot [missile batteries?]’ Unreliability or unpredictability is not just poison for NATO. It’s also poison for industry.”
While European leaders are increasingly wary of Trump, they don’t actually want to cut the United States out. The preference is still very much for collaboration, Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal told Defense One in an email.
“Trade between the EU and the U.S. has more than doubled over the past decade. The European Union is a reliable source of critical supplies to the United States, while being the largest buyer of the United States’ natural gas and oil. Millions of jobs in the U.S. depend on the EU,” he said. “The entire free world benefits from the cooperation between the EU and the USA. No one wins in a trade war or by ignoring each other’s interests, especially in defence. The United States is the EU’s largest export partner and second-largest import partner.”
An Eastern European defense official emphasized this point as well, signaling support for the “Trumpian” notion of larger EU defense budgets and greater European defense independence. But they also expressed a longing for a better partnership with the United States toward those mutual goals. “We are also looking to strengthen and enhance the capabilities of European defense. But we don’t want to build walls where they are not necessary,” the official said.
There’s a big reason not to build those walls, said Dan Darling, vice president of market insights at Forecast International. He said European defense independence by 2030 is unlikely, or at least very difficult, due to industrial gaps.
“Europe is critically short of key enablers—command-and-control, long-range strike capability (crucial for suppression of enemy air defenses) intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, artillery systems, drones and counter-drone systems, air-defense, airborne transport, logistical tail, and sufficient munitions,” he said.
A State Department official who spoke to Defense One via email also downplayed the political rift and emphasized the importance of U.S. defense companies to Europe.
“They bring advanced technologies, innovation, and competitive pricing that enhances Europe’s defense capabilities with the necessary speed and scale. Maintaining NATO standards and interoperability as the foundation of Alliance security requires that all Allies work together on building our capabilities,” the official said. “The EU claims they want to strengthen European security, yet their exclusion of U.S. companies from European defense projects would come at the detriment of their own security.”
One difficult-to-replace U.S. capability is satellite-based intelligence; the ability to see where Russians are staging missile and other attacks has proven essential to Ukraine’s defense. An independent defense industry analyst from the United States said it is also extremely unlikely that Europe would be able to develop its own space-based satellite capability by 2030.
Europe is also in the midst of a demographic crisis of shrinking populations. Even with advances in autonomy that may allow European operators on the ground to do more with less, “any army will require an expansion in the number of soldiers to operate the new kit,” Darling said. “Therefore, any money spent on growing capabilities will have to go toward recruitment. Recruitment across Europe has proven difficult over the years.”
Then there is the “patchwork” quality of European defense companies, as the U.K. based Royal United Services Union, or RUSI, think tank noted in March 2023. European governments are still incentivized to look out for their nations’ companies. RUSI pointed out that despite a 2020 EU pledge for countries to put 25 percent of their defense budgets toward collaborative investments, the actual number achieved was 11 percent. “This limited cooperation has, in turn, resulted in critical defence capability shortfalls, hampered interoperability among European armies and created economic losses due to unrealised economies of scale,” RUSI notes.
Darling said Europe is simply too diverse, with too many countries with wildly different relationships with Washington and Moscow, to reach simple, fast agreements on such big issues. “Asking 28-30 countries to be in constant alignment is naturally hard. Each country views their own security concerns and relations with Washington differently,” he said.
However, a new major geopolitical crisis, such as a Russian advancement on a NATO ally, could change that dynamic, forcing European governments to work together in ways that today would be politically difficult.
German intelligence services reportedly believe Russian President Vladimir Putin will attempt some sort of action against a NATO ally by the end of the decade. But, according to European media reporting, Lithuanian intelligence services believe Russia doesn’t have the means to carry out such a plan.
Darling is also skeptical that Russia would attempt an attack on a NATO ally now, regardless of Putin’s ambitions. “What is the likelihood Russia has enough bandwidth to invade the Baltics while it is struggling to carry out its current invasion of Ukraine?” he said.
Still, a very different crisis might emerge to accelerate a painful European-U.S. divorce: a U.S. attack on Greenland. But sources were reluctant to engage on that possibility.
“I don’t want to speculate on such a topic. Denmark and the U.S. are NATO allies, close partners, and this relationship offers broad opportunities for mutual cooperation, discussions, and ensuring security in the Arctic,” said Estonia’s Prime Minister.
Remarked the European defense official: “That would affect the whole international rules-based order. That would be a huge step and difference from today’s world.”
Note: Forecast International shares a parent company with Defense One.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.