US withdrawal would highlight the delay of the Europeans, called upon to replace 100 soldiers
How much does NATO cost America? Or, to put it another way, how much does the United States spend to defend Europe? This is the question – and several others that follow – that the Italian daily Corriere della Sera raises, as it points out that the latest reliable estimates, formulated by the CSIS think tank in Washington and the US Senate, range from 35 to 135 billion dollars per year. That is, between 4% and 15% of the entire US defense budget. Today, three years after the Russian attack on Ukraine, it is easy to imagine that the allocations are at least equal to 135 billion dollars. A figure that does not include 70 billion dollars in military aid paid to Kiev. This is only for the European area of ​​NATO, 30 countries, of which 23 are members of the EU.
What is the US contribution then? As Donald Trump and Elon Musk do, with money. Every year the Washington government covers 22% of the budget for managing NATO commands and financing joint operations. In 2024, the American share reached one billion dollars out of the total of 4.6 billion dollars. An amount that could be covered by the other 31 members of the Atlantic Alliance. But to do what? The United States provides the military backbone of NATO.
During the Cold War, over 400 soldiers were stationed on the Old Continent. Today, there are about 100 of them. Trump is returning to an old plan of his: withdrawing 30-35 of them stationed in Germany, relocating them, however, to Hungary, the country led by pro-Putin Viktor Orban.
In theory, the most exposed states could fill the gaps left by the US, but not immediately. How much does NATO cost the United States and what will be left of it in the event of its withdrawal? Poland is expected to bring in around 14 more uniforms; Italy 13; the United Kingdom 10; Spain 4. On paper – continues Corriere della Sera – these seem achievable, given that the Polish army has 114 men; the Italian one 165; the British 144; the German one 183. This would involve increasing the number of personnel by around 10%, with a peak of 20% for Germany. But it is not just a question of quantity. The 100 American soldiers are highly trained, can rely on the most sophisticated intelligence information and, above all, are combat-ready.
Not only that. NATO documents explain that in the event of an attack, the US would be ready to send massive reinforcements to Europe: 200 thousand more men and women, with armored vehicles, air cover, artillery… A total of 300 thousand soldiers, which would be enough, the generals claim, to defend the borders of the Atlantic Alliance. Would Europe be able to mobilize an equivalent force? Not today. According to research published by the Bruegel Institute in Brussels and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the combat capacity that the Americans could deploy in Europe in a few days is greater than that of the 29 European armies combined. Therefore, American non-commitment would expose the current lag of the Europeans on a strictly military level. Can it be recovered? The issue is not on the agenda at the moment. At least officially.
The European Commission and the Member States are working on a common defense plan complementary to those of NATO. On the assumption, therefore, that Trump can reduce the US presence, however, without completely abandoning the Old Continent. However, if the United States were to actually leave, no one knows how many years it would take before the EU countries were equipped with a military force of equal quality.
Finally, nuclear power. The US is said to have about a hundred nuclear warheads spread across Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. Will the French umbrella, and perhaps the British one, be enough to provide the same protection for all NATO partners? And who will have the final say in deciding whether and how to respond to a nuclear attack, perhaps limited, by the Russians? The withdrawal of the Americans would leave us with difficult but also worrying questions to answer for the time being.
