European security at a crossroads: Trump's NATO challenge
Europe is closely monitoring Donald Trump's and his administration's decisions, which could impact regional security. The presence of American troops in this part of the world, the future of NATO as we know it, and Russia's role in American perception are all under scrutiny. Concerns also exist about Europe's ability to potentially confront Russia independently.
Since its inception in 1949, NATO has served as a crucial counterbalance to the power of the USSR and later Russia. Additional members joined the alliance, hoping it would become their guarantee of external security. As of now, NATO includes 32 members, with Finland and Sweden as the most recent additions, amid the war in Ukraine and Russia's imperial ambitions.
Europe without the U.S. umbrella?
However, Donald Trump's administration is putting NATO's current operation into question. Trump had previously urged European NATO members to increase defence spending to five percent of GDP, and recently suggested that the U.S. might not defend its European allies. These statements, combined with President Trump's perception of Russia and Vladimir Putin, and the recent disagreement in the White House between Zelensky and Trump, are causing unease in Europe.
An analysis published in The Eurasian Times by Marshal Anil Chopra, a veteran of the Indian Air Force and former director general of the Center for Air Power Studies in New Delhi, highlighted that "the U.S. clearly wants Europeans to abandon the welfare state culture and allocate significantly larger sums to defence." He added that, in his opinion, "despite the initial rhetoric, the U.S. will support European democracies in the fight against authoritarian regimes but will expect them to pay for it." Thus, Europe faces a vital decision: whether to invest in regional security and European alliances or continue relying on the U.S. as its security guarantor.
This issue gains importance in light of Russia's imperial ambitions. The war in Ukraine, taking place on Europe's doorstep, has shown the ongoing threat from the Kremlin, with strength being one of the key arguments to deter or at least slow it. Experts are increasingly considering whether Europe could manage a confrontation with Russia on its own. Anil Chopra also highlighted this in his analysis, noting that the European Union is a political and economic alliance of countries spanning approximately 4,234,000 square kilometres and a population of 447 million, most of whom belong to NATO. Meanwhile, Russia covers about 17,098,000 square kilometres with a population of 146 million.
The Eurasian Times also shows a comparison of the combined military power of the European Union and the United Kingdom against Russia. In certain areas, Europe appears to have an advantage over Russia, particularly regarding military budget, active military personnel, armoured vehicles, total number of aircraft, and warships.
According to Anil Chopra, Europe must be capable of defending itself against Russia, with or without the United States. "Estimates suggest that to deter Russia, Europe may need 300,000 more troops and an annual increase in defence spending of at least £210 billion in the short term," he states. An increase of 300,000 soldiers equates to about 50 brigades. The expert also posits that Europe would need at least 1,400 tanks, 2,000 armoured fighting vehicles, and 700 artillery pieces to defend the Baltic states from Russian influence.
This would be in addition to producing ammunition and drones to match Russian UAV output, enhancing combat aviation resources, and boosting reconnaissance and transport aircraft, missiles, and capabilities in electronic warfare, communication, and intelligence. According to Chopra, this will necessitate a rise in defence budgets within European countries from the current 2 percent to 3.5 percent of GDP. It is worth noting, however, that Poland already spends over 4 percent of its GDP on defence.
In his analysis, the expert considers what role the United Kingdom will play in Europe's security—whether the country will stand in defence of the EU, despite no longer being a member, but still part of NATO. Will Germany or France assume a leading role in this process, or will another leader in "strengthening" Europe emerge? These questions remain difficult to answer. Chopra suggests two likely scenarios: in the first, Trump pressures Europe to increase defence spending and sign new contracts with American companies, halting the withdrawal of American troops and ensuring U.S. support. In the second, the U.S. leaves defence responsibility to Europeans, makes concessions to Putin, ends the war in Ukraine, and distances Russia from China.
"In all scenarios, Europeans will have to take far greater responsibility for their security and make concessions individually or collectively. They will need to build military and industrial capabilities to offset the American withdrawal," concludes Anil Chopra.
