Assessing Europe's massive defence bill without the US
How valuable is the American contribution to Europe's security? The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) attempted to estimate the costs involved in the withdrawal of American military engagement from the Old Continent. Hundreds of billions of dollars are just the beginning.
Statements by Donald Trump have called into question the credibility of the United States as a global security guarantor. This provided an opportunity for analyses, such as the one developed by IISS "Defending Europe Without the United States: Costs and Consequences". What conclusions does this reading lead to?
In preparing its analysis, IISS (a European think tank based in London) outlined several conditions, specifying hypothetical circumstances under which US forces would withdraw from Europe. IISS assumes a scenario in which the war in Ukraine ends in 2025 with a ceasefire, and the USA declares the start of the process of withdrawing from NATO and focusing its military potential on the Indo-Pacific.
This declaration is accompanied by the actual withdrawal of American troops and weapons systems from Europe – not only are the stationed troops withdrawn, but also all supplies, auxiliary personnel, stored equipment, and various types of gear. Simultaneously, Russia – after the end of hostilities – rebuilds its potential quickly enough to pose a threat, for example, to the Baltic states by 2027.
IISS stresses that this is not an inevitable scenario, but merely a definition of the conditions addressed in the analysis. How much would Europe have to spend to ensure its security without the involvement of the United States?
Europe without the American army
According to IISS, compensating for America's absence by Europe could cost up to a trillion dollars. It is a gigantic sum, but – given the economic potential of the Old Continent – it's feasible to allocate and spend over a long-term perspective, provided political will doesn't stand in the way.
For Europe, the problem is not money or the capacity to expand production capabilities but – as noted by IISS – primarily the lack of skilled personnel. It is essential both for the production and – most importantly – the effective use of hundreds of new aircraft, tanks, or ships.
According to IISS, the withdrawal of American troops would present a significantly more serious problem than the disappearance from the Old Continent of around 128,000 soldiers.
Europe would have to fill gaps in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance resources in space and all domains. It would also have to replace the substantial U.S. contribution to NATO's command and control structure and fill many high military positions in NATO organizations currently held by Americans.
European countries would also need to supplement their arsenals with about 600 tanks, 800 infantry fighting vehicles, 900 transport vehicles, and several thousand lighter armoured combat vehicles.
This is, however, just the tip of the iceberg – although a potential conflict with Russia would mainly be land-based, up to 70% of expenses would be consumed by the expansion of aviation (by approx. 400 combat aircraft) and naval forces, which should be reinforced by, among others, two aircraft carriers, 20 frigate-class ships, and 10 nuclear-powered submarines.
What weapons does Europe lack?
A key shortcoming in Europe's ability to wage war would still be something else: deficiencies in air and missile defence, as well as long-range weapons. These are areas where Europe is just beginning to define its needs.
Meanwhile – according to IISS – compensating for the absence of the USA would require the rapid delivery of several thousand anti-aircraft missiles of various classes, air-to-air missiles, and over 4,000 cruise missiles.
The problem is that European countries do not possess weapons with the appropriate range, so it would be necessary not only to produce them but to first design, test, and implement them, which takes time.
As a result – if wanting to maintain its deterrence capability – Europe would initially be reliant on foreign systems, such as American Tomahawk missiles (with a range of about 1,600 kilometres) and land-based launchers allowing their firing, namely the Typhon system. As a type of weapon Europe would also have to import, IISS points to stealth combat aircraft.
What percentage of GDP on defence?
Simultaneously, the European defence industry would not only need to be expanded but – requiring long-term political consensus – the countries of the Old Continent would have to achieve and maintain a level of defence spending estimated at an average of 3% of GDP.
