In truth, it could take a decade before Europe is able to defend itself without America’s help. To understand Europe’s challenge, start with the debate over Ukraine. European countries are currently discussing the prospect of a military deployment in Ukraine to enforce any future peace deal. The talks, which are being led by France and Britain, envisage sending a relatively modest force, of perhaps low tens of thousands of troops. They would not be deployed in the east at the front line, but to Ukrainian cities, ports, nuclear power plants and other critical national infrastructure, according to a Western official.
Any such deployment would, however, expose three serious weaknesses. One is that it would stretch European forces thin. There are approximately 230 Russian and Ukrainian brigades in Ukraine, though most are understrength. Many European countries would struggle to produce one combat-capable brigade each. Second, it would open up serious gaps in Europe’s own defences. A British deployment to Ukraine, for instance, would probably swallow up units currently earmarked as high-readiness and reserve forces for nato, leaving holes in the alliance’s war plans. Above all, the Europeans acknowledge that any deployment would need significant American support not only in the form of specific “enablers”, such as intelligence and air-defence assets, but also the promise of back-up should Russia attack.
Mirror: https://archive.is/tyyvg
The Economist is always a piece too easily discarded.
It’s delusional to think Russia would have any chance. They failed to beat Ukraine before it received any military aid. A single nation. What makes anyone seriously think Russia could take on an entire military alliance?
Wow, the economist did an amazing analysis of what would happen if Europe deployed peacetime troops, and literally nothing else, purely on its own.
It didn’t consider a ramp up. It didn’t consider the fact that Russia is fully engaged already. It didn’t consider the massive imbalance in equipment, especially airpower.
Obviously a fully deployed military massively outnumbers a non-mobilized one, duh. That’s not the point of the force at all.
The point is if Russia “intentionally” at location occupied by peacekeepers, they’re shooting first. And if they shoot first, then a few hundred modern aircraft can start turning every vehicle and building in camo between the Kyiv and Moscow into a crater in a series of “calm and rational, surgical strikes”.
Does that mean Europe doesn’t need a bigger with Nazi America at their backs? Fuck yes we need that. But Russia literally can’t even handle Ukraine right now.
I mean, they’re not “The General”, I guess.
While i don’t doubt the superior quality of equipment like tanks and planes, i am not sure how much munitions are available and how much can be produced in time. IIRC there were estimates that for the summer 2022 fighting level the entire stockpile of Artillery shells of the UK would last like two days if Ukraine was to use it exclusively.
For the whole German debate around Taurus missiles one credible argument was that Germany won’t send any, because Germany would only have a few dozen of them.
Of course combining the stockpiles and production capabilities across Europe should amount to a bit more, but i don’t think that “turning every vehicle and building in camo between the Kyiv and Moscow into a crater in a series of “calm and rational, surgical strikes”” can be pulled off just like this with the available munitions.
What seems to be often overlooked in the realm of weapon’s production, is that Europe is currently running on a “Whatever gives to most profit” system. There won’t be a new production line set up without optimizing cost-benefit and ensuring it’s most efficiently made.
Russia and Ukraine have been in the “Don’t give a shit, make shells in your garden shed if you have to” method of war production for years now. Meaning in Europe there isn’t a single converted factory, not even a hint of pressing civilian forges into making armor and not one fewer car produced in favor of a military truck.
Yes, it will take time to move to war production, and it’s always better to prepare than to play catchup. But you can’t compare the two methods.
I have no doubt that if Europe is threatened they can seriously ramp up the production of military equipment.
I don’t have experience with ammunition or things like that but I know for example that a lot of parts for airplane engines are manufactured in factory where both military and civilian parts are produced.
Meaning that if you delay or lower the production of civilian parts you have a lot of extra manufacturing capabilities available immediately for these parts.
Then you can start covering factories, this takes longer ,even during war time, but having a big automobile and aerospace industry means that there are industrial capabilities to mass manufacture equipment that could be used for military purposes.
It helps that Russia’s own equipment is mostly scrap in Ukraine already.
One thing that is definitly back from the cold war is British yellow press writing fear mongering articles…
Wasn’t Cold War scaremongering supposed to urge ever-higher levels of readiness? When I read one of these modern pieces the vibe I get is more like “abandon all hope, the only way to do things is the 2010 way, and without America we’re nothing”.
No, down-playing our own capabilities was always the primary method. Nothing gets the profits and stocks (already up 10x) of the defense contractors soaring like some nice panic buying.
No, down-playing our own capabilities and playing up the red scare was always the primary method.
That’s what I said, isn’t it? I’ve yet to read “so we’ve got to double our production or you’re a peacenik” rather than just doomposting when it comes to what conclusions they draw, though.
already up 10x
If you’re measuring from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it looks like it actually is!
It’s 40% up just since November, which is also a huge jump.
I’ve yet to read “so we’ve got to double our production or you’re a peacenik”
The German media and also the German part of Lemmy is full of that exact argument, although usually they don’t stop at double.
And yes I was explicitly thinking of Rheinmetall’s stock.
You know, that actually makes me hopeful. It doesn’t make the speaker a peacenik (whatever that is), but when I’ve heard people saying it’s all just talk or politics or whatever I have to think they’re living in some kind of alternate reality.
He’s working with donkeys because he’s out of vehicles to carry supplies to the front line. I think they can take him.
Europe has gotten complacent in thinking the US would always be their ally. They need to strengthen their military NOW instead of relying on the US as it’s clear their connections can change on a whim.
As I see it EU has about three years before agent Krasnov starts his invasion. He needs this war to extend term limits and keep his power. Watch how over the next few years he dismantles our allied relationships and places the blame on the US old allies while removing anyone in the US that dares go against him installing yesmen in their place.
Putin is too weak to go against the EU alone. China is a wildcard. My guess is that russia, US, North Korea and China will form a new axis of evil within four years.
I hope I’m wrong and there is still so much that can happen in a few years. But If I was the EU I’d be getting ready.
China fully aligning with Russia is a stretch. That would be an incredibly fragile alliance.
They don’t need a full alignment.
Russia is weakening the USA and its relationship to its allies, weakening resistance to a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan and its claims to the South China Sea.
The only issues they may come to clash with is Central Asia, but China seems ok with letting Russia have geopolitical control as long as China has economic access to these countries.
Complacency is basically the whole vibe of everyone in the West and their top local quintile. I miss the old days when powerful dudes were supposed to know history.
I really wish someone would kill Putin, Trump would no longer have marching orders, Ukraine would be left alone, and we’d all have fewer trolls in comment sections.
I am not a military expert, so that’s certainly a reason why I can’t follow everything in this article. The Bruegel analysis the Economist mentions, however, says:
From a macroeconomic perspective, the numbers are small enough for Europe to replace the US fully. Since February 2022, US military support to Ukraine has amounted to €64 billion, while Europe, including the United Kingdom, sent €62 billion. In 2024, US military support amounted to €20 billion out of a total of €42 billion. To replace the US, the EU would thus have to spend only another 0.12 percent of its GDP – a feasible amount […]
A significantly more challenging scenario for Europe would be an unlikely peace deal accepted by Ukraine. In such a scenario, Russia is likely to continue its military build-up, creating a formidable military challenge to all of the EU in a very short period, given current Russian production. The EU and allies including the UK and Norway would need to accelerate their military build-ups immediately and massively […]
It also says:
A Russian attack on a European Union country is thus conceivable. Assessments by NATO, Germany, Poland, Denmark and the Baltic states put Russia as ready to attack within three to ten years 4 . It could be sooner […]
Europe’s first priority is to continue supporting Ukraine – Ukraine’s experienced military is currently the most effective deterrent against a Russian attack on the EU. If Ukraine decides that a US-Russian deal to end the war is unacceptable – because Putin’s peace guarantees are not credible, for example – Europe is capable of providing additional weapons to Ukraine to ensure its fighting capacities remain as they are currently. Ukraine and the EU rely on some critical US strategic enablers, including intelligence and satellite communications. These are difficult to replace in the short term but there are substitutes if necessary […]
Rapidly generating such increases [in military equipment and production] requires an extraordinary effort, though experience [in Eruope] shows market economies can do it […]
Bruegel says -unsurprisingly- that Europe must significantly increase its defense spending, and also makes suggestions how this could be done best (amongst others, by replacing the US military-industrial base). Overall it provides a different picture than the Economist imho.
The report also just stops very short of saying the quiet part out loud: the strategy so far has been to use Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn to bog down Russia. This cynical strategy worked so far, but there are signs that the Ukrainians don’t want to take part in this any longer, and this is what has all the military analysts running around like headless chicken right now. Trump is basically just accelerating the inevitable.
What lessons we can take from that and what the best new strategy will be is disputed right now.
The problem is going to be deciding what the peace looks like.
Russia is asking for more land than it controls and doesn’t provide security guarantees to Ukraine, opening Ukraine up to a possible third invasion in the near future.
Ukraine seems open to accepting its current losses, but likely needs security guarantee by some entity powerful enough to deter a third invasion. You also have NATO/EU nations being unwilling to withdraw troops from nations bordering Russia because this is the second time Russia has invaded a neighboring country in 11 years and these nations aren’t belligerents yet.
