No Luxury of Time: Europe's Defence Dilemma
An internalising US, longstanding complacency, and polarised continental politics are paralyzing Europe’s ability to defend itself.
Imagine this: NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance, faces a growing crisis, not from a rival superpower, but from within.
The US, once the pillar of NATO’s strength and now led by a certain Mr Trump, gradually but increasingly begins to withdraw its support, shifting its focus elsewhere.
Oh wait.
You don’t really need to imagine, its arguably already happening.
What do you reckon? Let me know what in the comments!
A Case of a New Normal
But it gets even juicer, as with shifting global priorities and new power dynamics emerging, NATO could be left scrambling to adapt. Lets use the Arctic in this future scenario.
The Arctic’s icy expanse is alive with the rumble of tanks and the roar of fighter jets. Russia and China are conducting Vostok 2030, their first joint military exercise in the region.
Thousands of troops, fleets of warships, and squadrons of aircraft are on display—two powers flexing their muscles in a theatre once considered untouched by such aggression.
This isn’t just sabre-rattling; it’s the latest move in what Moscow and Beijing call their “historic partnership.”
Over the last five years, this alliance has been sharpening its teeth.
Russia, fresh from rebuilding its military post-Ukraine, and China, emboldened by NATO’s perceived weakness, have steadily grown their influence in the Arctic.
When Trump returned to the White House, his shift in focus from Europe to China seemed to confirm NATO’s fragility. That perception is now reality.
Then the bombshell drops. Russia announces its claim over the Arctic continental shelf. China, no surprise, supports it. In return, Moscow recognizes Beijing’s “historic rights” to the South China Sea.
A mutual nod here, a calculated land grab there, and suddenly, Chinese and Russian forces are landing on Norway’s Svalbard archipelago—a strategic Arctic gateway. NATO gears up to respond, but without the weight of U.S. military power, its efforts fall short.
Now, Europe faces an unthinkable dilemma:
accept the loss of Svalbard or,
invoke NATO’s nuclear clause and risk a catastrophic retaliation.
In London and Paris, leaders grapple with an impossible decision that could reshape the continent—or obliterate it.
Joyfully still, this isn’t some wild dystopian fantasy.
It’s a plausible scenario, drawn from The Retreat From Strategy by former UK armed forces chief General Lord David Richards and defence expert Julian Lindley-French.
Their message is stark:
Europe faces growing threats it is woefully unprepared to counter.
Despite its devastating losses in Ukraine, ~700k casualties (those killed and injured), according to UK and US intelligence - who accurately predicted the timing of Putin’s full-scale invasion we should remember - Russia’s military remains a force to reckon with.
NATO’s supreme commander, General Christopher Cavoli, has warned that Russia is likely to emerge stronger post-war, with seasoned commanders and clear hostility toward the West. "We’ll have a formidable opponent, right on NATO’s borders," he warned bluntly.
For decades, NATO’s backbone has been the U.S. military.
But Trump’s return to power has cast doubt over America’s future global leadership, let alone commitment to European security.
Even before his re-election, European leaders were voicing concerns. Germany’s defence minister, Boris Pistorius, bluntly asked: would the U.S. do “much less or a little less” in Europe?
Either way, Europe had to step up. French President Emmanuel Macron echoed this sentiment, warning that Europe risks becoming a “herbivore surrounded by carnivores.”
Words vs Actions
But words are cheap.
Despite their rhetoric, Europe’s defence spending and readiness remain insufficient.
Indeed, this is one of Trump’s more reasonable and accurate grievances. In that, although Europe is most at risk from Putin’s readoption of the ‘‘might is right’’ (use of military force not diplomacy to get what you want) approach to foreign policy, a large proportion of them have rested on their laurels, largely freeriding on US security provisions.
Complacency doesn’t quite cover it. Even now, during the worst war on the European continent since WWII, some NATO members still are not reaching their 2% target spending GDP.
Moreover, despite NATO’s ambitious “New Force Model” promising, on paper, rapid troop deployment, without U.S. logistical and military heft, serious doubt lingers on whether Europe can deliver independently on such initiatives.
As one senior European official admits, “We know what needs to be done. The question is, can we do it—and at what cost?”
The challenges are daunting:
Britain’s military has been hollowed out, France’s stockpiles are thin, and Germany’s modernization efforts are hampered by budget constraints (not to mention political crises and sudden snap election).
To fill the void left by a US withdrawal, Europe would need to invest heavily in everything from ammunition to logistics—what experts call the “boring war” necessities.
Awkwardly, such basics that only the US currently provides at scale. And then there’s the leadership vacuum.
NATO has always relied on US generals to guide strategy and maintain cohesion. Without them, European leaders might devolve into infighting. "Can you imagine Macron deferring to Poland’s Prime Minister Tusk? Or vice versa?" some commentary I’ve seen has even said.
The absence of a unifying force risks turning NATO from a cohesive alliance into a squabbling coalition.
Fixing this won’t be easy.
Europe’s fragmented defence industry is a logistical nightmare, with 172 different weapons systems compared to the U.S.’s 32. That inefficiency drives up costs, reduces interoperability, and complicates even basic tasks like supplying ammunition.
Political will is needed to consolidate production, but national pride and economic interests stand in the way.
Even if Europe finds the money - and it can (Russia’s economy is ~10x smaller than the collective of the EU+UK) - its still logistically and practically speaking a monumental task to replace existing US military capabilities/installations.
Europe would need to build its own transport fleets, expand its intelligence networks, and ramp up production of everything from artillery shells to fighter jets.
But some progress is being made. Europe now produces more artillery shells than the US, and companies like Rheinmetall and MBDA are stepping up. But it’s still a race against time.
But it goes beyond Europe
The urgency is underscored by the shifting global landscape.
As Russia grows closer to China (including setting up its own drone manufacturing hub with help from Beijing - the video below) and other authoritarian states, Europe can no longer afford to rely on comforting assumptions about allies and adversaries.
Whether you believe or are fed up of hearing of a ‘‘multipolar world’’, the reality is that the prevailing world we’ve grown customed to - a rule’s based order since post-WWII, is rapidly changing, or in many cases reversing.
Indeed, to many, including me to an extent, we’re a regressing to that use of hard power and coercion over soft power and diplomacy. Great power competition is returning and the rate at how bigger countries larger dictate to smaller ones how things are going to go.
It reminds me of a recent perspective l heard by Sir Alex Younger - former head of MI6t on how we are witnessing a contest between two different views of the world:
the Yalta treaty: where ‘‘big states are given the right to order the affairs of small states’’, versus
the Helsinki treaty: where ‘states were given their rights after the excesses of the second world war, regardless of size’’
And the incoming new US President, Trump, is a ‘‘Yalta man through-and through’. He operates via transactionality and spheres of influence. Thus, Europe must decide whether to adapt, or to falter.
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Europe’s security, independence, and place in the world hang in the balance. If the U.S. steps back, Europe’s leaders will have to navigate a treacherous new era, where every decision carries existential risks.
The clock is ticking, and the time for half-measures is over.