Many experts and politicians convince us that Europe must stand on its own feet. This has nothing to do with the idea that the USA could give up on Europe. NATO is doing well. In the coming years, however, Americans’ eyes will focus on Asia, regardless of who will rule in the White House.

Strengthening the European defense potential is one of the key challenges of the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union, which started on January 1, 2025. The program announced by the Polish government refers to increasing expenditures on the military and arms industry, strengthening defense infrastructure on the EU’s eastern borders, or strengthening EU relations with NATO. Warsaw declares its support for all such initiatives. “The era of geopolitical outsourcing has come to an end,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in November 2024 and added that Europe must finally believe it is strong. To put it simply: Europe must break out of lethargy and realize that in matters of its security, it cannot rely solely on the power of the United States.

Donald Trump’s election victory confused many European politicians. He also even for a moment does not let anyone forget why he won. A few weeks ago, he declared in the NBC interview that he would consider leaving NATO if the allies “didn’t pay their bills.” Such an option, as experts agree on, seems unlikely, still... Donald Trump will be a tough player. It can be assumed that he will use every opportunity to force European allies to increase spending on armaments. He will also want them to take more responsibility than before for maintaining security on the Old Continent. Especially since in the coming years, the Americans will focus their attention even more than before on Asia and the Pacific region. After all, China is there – their only rival in the fight for global primacy.

European leaders repeat: we understand this. Indeed, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine defense spending has increased. Only a decade ago, when Russia seized the Ukrainian Crimea and set fire to Donbas, just three countries allocated 2% of their GDP for this purpose. In 2024, the GDP ceiling set by NATO reached 23 allies. Among them, Poland is the absolute leader, whose defense spending exceeded 4% of GDP. The goal was also achieved by other eastern flank countries – from Finland, through the Baltic countries, to Romania, and most importantly, although with certain difficulty, by European powers: Great Britain, France, and Germany.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the opinions are being expressed that this is still not enough. In the spring of 2024, in an interview with The Washington Post, Polish President Andrzej Duda said that the GDP threshold for defense spending set by NATO should be raised to 3%. At the end of 2024, the media wrote about Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who announced a revision of the most ambitious plan in history to finance the army and the defense sector. Eight months earlier, the authorities approved a document, which assumed a four-year expenditure of 35 billion Danish krones. However, Denmark quickly concluded that the budget should be higher. Other countries also spoke in a similar tone, such as the members of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), headed by Great Britain.

Increased spending translates primarily into the modernization and expansion of the army. Again, it is in Poland where changes are most visible. Multi-billion contracts are being implemented at a fast pace. Modern Abrams and K2 tanks, HIMARS and Chunmoo rocket launchers are being delivered to the military units, subsequent elements of the missile defense shield – such as Patriot batteries purchased in the USA – are put into use, and soon pilots will operate the 5th-generation F-35A fighters, and new ships for the Polish Navy are being built in the shipyards, including the first of three advanced Miecznik frigates. Polish decision-makers presume the Polish Armed Forces soon become one of the strongest armies in Europe. Other countries are also expanding their military potential: France is buying thousands of reconnaissance and combat drones and modernizing their nuclear arsenal; Germany has ordered more Patriots and in cooperation with Norway they are building new submarines; Great Britain is buying more F-35B aircraft. The list is, of course, much longer. European countries do not stop at NATO membership. In addition to strengthening transatlantic relations, they are also making efforts to build intracontinental ones, though only at the European Union level.

EU in Combat

A crisis is growing at the borders of Europe. To prevent an escalation that could threaten the continent, military troops from several countries are being deployed there. The danger is nipped in the bud. Such was the scenario of last year Exercise Milex 2024, aimed to test the ability of soldiers of different nations to interact under the auspices of the European Union. The forces operating at the training ground in Bergen, Germany, were led by the Eurocorps, an international command based in Strasbourg. It is currently commanded by a Pole, LtGen Piotr Błazeusz.

The Eurocorps was formed in 1992 and immediately became one of the symbols of the EU military aspirations. “France and Germany assumed at the time that the community would become a significant player in the international arena, and a partner for the USA, not only in economy but also in politics. One of the conditions was to have your own army,” explains Łukasz Przybyło, PhD, of the War Studies University (ASzWoj) in Warsaw. History has shown differently. “Most countries have concluded that minimizing the American presence in Europe makes no sense. However, the very idea of developing EU military capabilities is not dead,” he emphasizes. Over the years, the Eurocorps had worked very closely with NATO, for instance during numerous foreign missions. “In 1998, our personnel participated in the NATO-led SFOR combat operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and two years later they formed the command that later became the headquarters of the NATO forces deployed in Kosovo. We also have led the ISAF mission in Afghanistan and several times commanded the ground component of the NATO Response Forces,” says Cdr Tomasz Pawęska of the Eurocorps press office, and adds that the Strasbourg command is now an integral part of the collective security system. “At any time, depending on events and needs, we can be deployed for both NATO and EU operations,” assures Cdr Tomasz Pawęska.

For now, from January 1, 2025, the Eurocorps has been playing the role of a forward command for the European Union Battle Group (EU BG). It consists of soldiers from nine countries, and they count about 5,000. Most of them are German. There are over a dozen similar groups. As a rule, there are 1,500–2,000 soldiers. The European Union established battlegroups in 2004, and they are supposed to take part in stabilization, preventive, and humanitarian missions within a radius of 6,000 km from Brussels. Within 15 days they must be ready to be deployed to the trouble region. The idea is simple – if necessary, soldiers under the auspices of the EU enter the action, for a month to three silence the first crisis, and then give way to the forces operating under the flag of the United Nations. Poland also strongly emphasizes its presence in these structures. Suffice it to mention that since July 2024, the core of the Visegrad Battlegroup has been soldiers of the Polish 6th Airborne Brigade. They will end their duty in June 2025. “This decision strengthens Poland’s position in the European Union and Polish security. We are filling the gap that other countries have not been able to fill,” emphasized Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz during the inauguration of the Polish command.

Joint Programs

However, Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine has also put the European Union in a completely new situation. Community leaders decided to move sharply forward. In 2022, the so-called Strategic Compass was approved, which defines the EU strategy for security and defense. In November 2024, the defense ministers of the member states, on the occasion of the adoption of the annual report on EU defense, signed four letters of intent on joint investments and the development of armament programs. They relate to, among others, the purchase of loitering munition or building a European missile defense system. The last idea came from Germany back in 2022. So far, 18 countries have joined the European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI), with Poland as the most recent one. The project involves the creation of a shield consisting of three ballistic missile defense systems: Arrow-3, Patriot, and IRIS-T-SLM.

The EU has also launched, among others, the European Defense Industry Reinforcement Through Common Procurement Act (EDIRPA) mechanism, which is to encourage member states to purchase equipment for their armies, and at the same time support the European arms industry. Finally, Brussels is talking a lot about the need to increase the EU defense budget. At the end of 2024, Andrius Kubilius, a Lithuanian-born EU Commissioner for Defense, suggested that the next seven-year project should include the allocation for this purpose of 100 billion euros, which is ten times higher than it is now. The new perspective will be in effect from 2027.

This is a good move, especially in the face of Donald Trump’s recent announcements. “Europe should strengthen its position, although of course, it is not an easy task,” believes Łukasz Przybyło, PhD. The situation got significantly complicated after Brexit, which threw out one of Europe’s two nuclear powers outside the EU. “Great Britain was automatically excluded from all EU projects, but... we cannot rule out that one day it will return to the community or at least strengthen ties with it in various fields,” he says. Except that there are more unknowns. “Europe must certainly ensure a certain military autonomy. The question is, should this involve a significant expansion of the EU’s military structures? In my opinion, not necessarily. Why do it when we have NATO?” asks Jakub Olchowski, PhD, a political scientist at the Institute of Central Europe (IEŚ) and the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (UMCS) in Lublin. Paweł Turczyński, Prof., of the Institute of European Studies (ISE) at the University of Wrocław (UW), speaks in a similar tone. “European countries must answer a fundamental question: wouldn’t the expansion of the EU military structures come down to a duplication of NATO? If so – why do it? Is it worth convincing the citizens of the member states to invest simultaneously in two separate structures, whose goals remain identical?” he wonders. In his opinion, it is unfounded to build an alternative to NATO. The EU itself has neither such potential nor... aspirations. It considers cooperation with NATO as one of its priorities. All European initiatives are supposed to be in line with the efforts undertaken by NATO. This is the case, for example, with the EU-initiated EUMAM training mission, which prepares soldiers from Ukraine for combat.

Barrel of Honey, Spoonful of Tar

Meanwhile, the tension in Europe does not decrease. The Russian army is stuck in Ukraine, but politicians and experts do not doubt that the Kremlin has not given up its aspirations. These are associated with the destruction of the geopolitical post-Cold War order. To avoid this, NATO is strengthening its deterrence policy. The presence of US troops on the Old Continent remains one of its pillars. However, European allies are also very active. Example? In mid-December, the media circulated information about the interception of two Russian Tu-22 bombers equipped with hypersonic missiles over the Baltic Sea. It was done by a pair of Finnish F-18s assisted by the Dutch F-35, which took off from the Ämari Air Base in Estonia, where the Dutch are stationed as part of the Air Policing mission. The goal of the mission is to secure the airspace in the area of the Baltic states. Previously, such tasks in Estonia and Lithuania were carried out by, among others, Polish F-16s.

On the eastern flank, there are also battalion battlegroups, consisting of army troops deployed by over a dozen of countries. In Estonia, the core of the group are the British soldiers, in Lithuania – German, in Romania – French, and so on. In the event of a crisis, European allies will fight side by side with Americans and Canadians. According to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack on even one of the member states is an attack on the entire Alliance and must be met with its response.

Over Russia, which is currently the most likely opponent, NATO has a definite advantage. However, would Europe be able to repel its aggression on its own? “Easily,” says Łukasz Przybyło, PhD. “On the condition that it was a conventional strike, and in our speculations we will only do the list of military potentials,” he adds. In terms of weapons, NATO’s Europe has an advantage over Russia at practically every level. According to the latest Global Firepower ranking, Russia currently owns just over 4,000 aircraft and helicopters, while European NATO members have almost twice as many. Nearly 2,000 of them are the multi-purpose F-35s, F-16s, Eurofighters or Gripens. “This is a completely different league than Russian warplanes. In addition, NATO pilots are better trained. The Russians have been unable to gain air dominance on the Ukrainian front for two years. For that reason, it is hard to assume that they would succeed to do that in Europe,” notes Łukasz Przybyło, PhD.

The situation is similar when it comes to the Navy. Suffice it to mention that the European allies have six aircraft carriers at their disposal, including two modern British Queen Elisabeth-class ships, which can carry 36 F-35 aircraft and four Merlin helicopters on their decks. In addition, there are dozens of modern destroyers, frigates, and submarines, including nuclear-powered vessels. Russia can oppose them with only one aircraft carrier, which is the worn-out ‘Admiral Kuznetsov’ which has been undergoing renovation for years, with no end in sight. The Russians can boast a large number of surface and submarine combat vessels. Moreover, their number is growing. At the end of 2023, two nuclear-powered submarines, ‘Krasnoyarsk’ and ‘Imperator Aleksandr III,’ joined the line, and in a few months they are to be joined by another vessel of this class: ‘Kniaz Pozharsky.’ Still, however, European NATO members have a quantitative advantage several times here, not to mention a technological advantage.

It is much harder to estimate the differences when it comes to land forces. However, given the great losses Russia has suffered in Ukraine, Europe probably dominates here as well. Especially since European military equipment includes more advanced equipment, such as Leopard, Challenger, and Abrams tanks. “European armies need to make up for personnel shortages, but they still have quite a lot of resources,” says Łukasz Przybyło, PhD. Poland and France each have over 200,000 soldiers, Italy and Great Britain are approaching this number. The Turkish army, the largest after the American army, has 481,000 people. The Russian army, according to Global Firepower, has 1.3 million soldiers.

“The West stands incomparably higher when it comes to technical and organizational culture,” emphasizes Jakub Olchowski, PhD. “Three years of war in Ukraine has been a series of Russian compromises when it comes to command at practically all levels, although of course today the situation has improved significantly compared to 2022. In addition, there is the issue of equipment. The Russians boast that they have super technologies, but it is enough to ask a simple question: is the West smuggling Russian chips and components for its missiles, or is it the other way around?” says the political scientist. That is not all. According to Jakub Olchowski, PhD, Russia knows that there is no great chance of confrontation with NATO, which is why it resorts to psychological tricks. This is how the latest modification of the nuclear strategy should be perceived. The new version of the document states that the Russians can use nuclear weapons against a state that will attack their territory using conventional means but with the support of a nuclear power. “Putin, reaching for a nuclear scarecrow, drew another red line. In this way, he responded to Ukrainian attacks with the use of Western missiles, which targeted objects in the depths of Russia. Except that no action followed the veiled threats again. Such scaring of Western politicians and society to some extent unfortunately brings results, but it is slowly becoming grotesque,” the expert emphasizes.

Necessary Investments

However, this does not mean that Europe can sleep peacefully. “If Russia attacked Poland using conventional means, and the number of its troops and equipment were similar to what we currently see on the Ukrainian front, we would be a tough nut for Russia to crack,” says Paweł Turczyński, Prof. “Unfortunately, the further to the West, the worse the situation would look,” he adds. According to him, Putin’s aggressive attitude has forced European leaders to act, but these changes are still too slow. “I’ll give you a few examples. In 2023, Germany, as part of the armored coalition, supplied Ukraine with about 20 Leopard 2A5 tanks. They announced that they would make up for the loss in their army in 2025–2026. It took them two or three years to produce 20 vehicles?! The same with ammunition. As recently as 2023, France was able to transfer to Ukraine... a thousand 155-mm artillery shells per month. At the end of 2024, as announced by the French Minister of Defense, production increased to 3,000 per month. Compared to what the fighting sides at the front consume, it’s as much as nothing. Russia is waging a material war in Ukraine, and European industry was not prepared for this. Now we have to catch up. Not only to help Ukrainians but also to replenish their reserves,” emphasizes Paweł Turczyński, Prof. Europe has the right infrastructure for this. “Among the 100 largest arms companies in the world, there are as many as 27 defense companies from our continent. Except that we produce mainly for others. Europe is responsible for a third of global arms exports,” Jakub Olchowski, PhD, notes and adds that in the face of the threat, at least part of this production should be directed inward. However, this requires political will, which is challenging. “The West lacks strong leaders, while European society must be convinced that greater spending on armaments is a necessity because the time of peaceful coexistence is over. Not an easy task. The new situation in many aspects may translate into a deterioration in the current standard of living of ordinary Europeans,” says Paweł Turczyński, Prof. Yet, there is no alternative. “It is better to spend on armaments up to 5-6% than 37% of GDP, which is what Ukraine currently spends,” says Łukasz Przybyło, PhD.

Experts emphasize that open war is not a threat to us. “Russia is quite involved in Ukraine. The war costs Russia too much effort and resources to think about another one,” emphasizes Paweł Turczyński, Prof. This situation may not last forever, though. “That’s why we have to make good use of the time we got. Paradoxically, Trump’s coming to power may turn out to be beneficial for Europe. There is a chance that the dynamics change. Will this happen? We’ll see,” concludes Jakub Olchowski, PhD.

There is no doubt that Europe is at its turning point. Such great security challenges have not existed in Europe since the end of the Cold War. Although Old Continent has all the data to face those challenges, it must first believe that it is the only way out.

_____________
Translated by Anita Kwaterowska