Europe's defence dilemma: Life without American military might
How much is the American contribution to Europe's security worth? The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) attempted to estimate the cost involved if the American military disengaged from the Old Continent. Hundreds of billions of dollars would be just the beginning.
Donald Trump's declarations doubt the United States' credibility as a global security guarantor. This provided an opportunity for analyses such as the one prepared by IISS, "Defending Europe Without the United States: Costs and Consequences". What conclusions does this reading lead to?
While preparing its analysis, the IISS, a European think tank based in London, outlined several conditions, detailing the hypothetical circumstances under which the withdrawal of US forces from Europe would occur. IISS assumes a scenario in which the war in Ukraine ends in 2025 with a ceasefire, and the USA declares the beginning of the process of withdrawing from NATO and focusing its military potential on the Indo-Pacific.
This declaration is accompanied by the withdrawal of American troops and weapons systems from Europe; troops stationed in Europe are withdrawn, along with all reserves, auxiliary personnel, stored equipment, and various types of gear. At the same time, Russia, after the cessation of hostilities, rebuilds its potential quickly enough to pose a threat, for instance, to the Baltic states as early as 2027.
The IISS cautions that this is not an inevitable scenario, but merely a definition of the conditions the analysis concerns. How much would Europe need 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 might cost Europe up to a trillion dollars in total. This is a gigantic sum, but considering the Old Continent's economic potential, it could feasibly be allocated and spent in the long run, provided that political will does not stand in the way.
For Europe, the problem is not money or the issue of expanding production capabilities, but – as IISS notes – primarily a shortage of qualified personnel. This is essential for production and, most importantly, for the subsequent use of hundreds of new aircraft, tanks, or ships.
According to IISS, withdrawing American troops would, however, mean a more serious problem than the disappearance of approximately 128,000 soldiers from the Old Continent.
Europe would have to fill gaps in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance resources in space and across all domains. It would also need to replace the significant US contribution to NATO’s command and control structure and fill many high-ranking military positions in NATO organisations currently held by Americans.
European countries would also need to bolster their arsenals by approximately 600 tanks, 800 armoured fighting vehicles, 900 transporters, and several thousand lighter armoured fighting vehicles.
However, this is just the tip of the iceberg—although a potential conflict with Russia would mainly be land-based, up to 70% of the expenditure would be consumed by the expansion of air forces (by approximately 400 combat aircraft) and naval forces, which should be augmented with, among other things, two aircraft carriers, 20 frigate-class ships, and 10 nuclear-powered submarines.
What weapons does Europe lack?
However, something else would create the key gap in Europe's ability to wage war: shortcomings related to air and missile defence and long-range weapons. Europe is only beginning to define its needs in these areas.
Meanwhile, according to IISS, compensating for the USA's absence 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 have weapons with the appropriate range, so it would be necessary not only to produce them but to first develop, test, and deploy them, which takes time.
As a result, wanting to maintain its deterrence capability, Europe would initially be forced to rely on foreign systems, such as American Tomahawk missiles (with a range of approximately 1,000 miles) and land launchers enabling their firing, the Typhon system. As a type of weapon that Europe would also have to import, IISS points to stealth fighter jets.
What percentage of GDP for defence?
At the same time, the European arms industry would need not only to be expanded but, which would require prolonged 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.
