Just to defend the Baltic states from a possible Russian attack, Europe would need 1500 tanks, 2000 armored fighting vehicles, 700 artillery systems. A firepower greater than all that Italy, France, Germany and the UK can muster together. But the lack of troops and equipment is not the only problem. The EU does not have 300 troops ready for immediate deployment.
Summits, hasty maneuvers and suspicions. Cyclone Donald Trump has plunged Europe into chaos – or almost. The new US administration has shown that it intends to close the Ukrainian file as soon as possible and shift its focus from Europe to China. For weeks, the United States has been asking Europe to take Kiev’s future into its own hands. And in Europe, some countries such as France and Great Britain are liking the idea of almost complete autonomy. But doing without the American umbrella is a costly and complex matter. This means not only managing the peace in Ukraine, but also maintaining a military power sufficient to secure its own borders from any Russian threat.
According to the Belgian think tank Bruegel, this autonomy remains an illusion in the short term. Some figures help to understand this. Russia has deployed 700 troops in Ukraine by 2024, far more than in 2022, when it launched the “special military operation”. Last year alone, Moscow produced or refurbished over 1,500 tanks, 5,700 armored vehicles and 450 artillery systems. Although Russia cannot afford a new war front, fear remains high in European chancelleries.
In February, a widely circulated Danish intelligence report warned that if NATO were perceived as weak, Moscow could launch a full-scale war within five years. Beyond the cataclysm, it is clear that Europe cannot provide an equal, let alone superior, deterrent force. Two examples illustrate this clearly. According to experts interviewed by The New York Times, at least 150 troops on the ground are needed to ensure a lasting ceasefire in Ukraine. Paris and London have suggested only 30, a figure far from sufficient. If a Russian aggression against a NATO country occurs, the US has a readiness mechanism that ensures an immediate response: 84 US troops are present in Europe. Within 10 days, this number could increase to 100. Within a month, the US could bring in an additional 200 troops. In total, 300 American soldiers could be ready to deploy to Europe within a month.
Europe, meanwhile, has no such force ready for use. France has only 58 ground troops, according to its Ministry of Defense. Great Britain has a maximum capacity of 74 troops.
Even adding the contingents of other European countries, it is difficult to achieve the impact of 300 thousand American troops. Moreover, the US has a unified command, which cannot be said for the 29 NATO countries in Europe, where the organization is much more complex. But even if coordination were to improve, a major problem remains: the lack of military equipment. Just to protect the Baltic states from a possible Russian attack, Europe would need 1500 tanks, 2000 armored fighting vehicles, 700 artillery systems.
A firepower greater than that of Italy, France, Germany and the UK combined. But the lack of troops and equipment is not the only problem. The US has major technological advantages that Europe does not have. Among them, the capacity to transport troops and equipment over long distances, superiority in missiles and air defense systems, drones and electronic warfare, as well as intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities. The list of needs is so long that Europe’s military independence remains almost an illusion.
