European leaders must urgently discard their complacency that has persisted since the Soviet era. This entails increasing defence spending to levels not witnessed in many years, revitalizing Europe’s neglected military traditions, reorganizing its arms industries and making preparations for potential conflicts. However, it is important to note that these efforts are still in their early stages.

After two years of conflict, Russia is currently dominating in Ukraine. By prioritizing the economy for war efforts, the Russian president is allocating a significant 7.1% of the country’s GDP towards defence. According to Denmark’s defence minister, within the next three to five years, Putin could be prepared to confront NATO, through hybrid operations—a combination of conventional and unconventional tactics used in modern warfare that involve a blend of military, political, economic and informational methods to achieve strategic objectives.

These hybrid operations potentially target one of the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, located in northeastern Europe along the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. Putin’s aim would be to weaken NATO’s pledge that, in the event of an attack on one member-country, the others would be prepared to offer support. A recent Reuters report, quoting Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, says Russia is gearing up for an armed conflict with the West in the next decade, but could be deterred by a counter-buildup of armed forces.

An increasing number of Western officials have warned of a military threat from Russia to countries along NATO’s eastern flank, calling for Europe to get prepared by rearming. According to the chief of the intelligence service, the assessment was based on Russian plans to double the number of forces along its border with NATO members, Finland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

As the Russian threat continues to escalate, Western deterrence is becoming less effective. This is partly due to the uncertain support from the United States towards Ukraine. Additionally, the doubts raised by Donald Trump, a potential future American president, about whether he would stand with Europe in the event of a Russian attack, have further weakened the situation.

The Republican Party and some parts of the security establishment are becoming less dedicated to Europe. The focus of American defence is shifting more towards the Pacific. Even if President Joe Biden is re-elected, he may be the last president who instinctively prioritizes the ‘Atlantic Alliance’—the collective defence and security partnership between North American and European countries, primarily through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), emphasizing the mutual commitment to protect and support each other in the face of external threats.

There is a growing shift in American defence priorities towards the Pacific region—the area encompassing countries and territories surrounding the Pacific Ocean, including East Asia, South-East Asia, Oceania and parts of the Americas that holds significant economic, geopolitical and military importance on a global scale—indicating a greater focus on security and strategic interests in that area.

The consequences are of great concern. Europe relies heavily on the dominant military force of NATO. An American general made a complaint that many European armies would face difficulties in deploying even a single fully equipped brigade consisting of a few thousand troops. Between 2015 and 2023, the United Kingdom experienced a reduction of five combat battalions. Numerous countries have deficiencies in critical capabilities, such as transport aircraft, command and control systems and satellites.

For instance, while Poland possesses the highly capable HIMARS rocket artillery system, it relies on the United States for locating long-range targets. The swift progress made by Russia and Ukraine in drone warfare, which is being tested regularly in actual combat situations, poses a risk of NATO falling behind in terms of technological advancements.

Considering the lengthy cycles involved in military planning, Europe must take immediate action to rectify the situation. The primary focus should be on enhancing its own combat capabilities. This can be initiated through a large-scale programme encompassing recruitment and procurement of the necessary resources. Mandatory military service is costly and not very efficient, yet Europe can draw lessons from Nordic countries, such as Finland and Sweden, which maintain substantial reserve forces.

European armies attempt to consolidate their equipment orders, but disagreements often arise among countries with defence industries regarding the equitable distribution of business opportunities. France is displeased with European countries buying an air-defence system that depends upon American and Israeli launchers. When deciding between quickly improving their soldiers’ fighting abilities and slowly developing their own industries, they should prioritize speed.

This year, European NATO countries are expected to spend approximately $380 billion on defence, which is similar to Russia’s when considering purchasing power. However, Europe does not receive as much value for its defence budget. One reason is the lack of cohesion among the European countries. Additionally, there is a tendency to cut corners when it comes to purchasing equipment. NATO requires its members to allocate 20% of their budgets for weapons, but EU NATO countries—including Norway—have accumulated a shortfall of €557 billion ($600 billion) since 1991.

Under the European Union (EU), member-countries include Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others. These countries are also part of NATO, along with additional NATO members, such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Norway and Turkey.

Closing the Gap a Challenge: Closing that gap will be challenging! In 2022, European NATO members, despite eight years of increased spending after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, collectively spent no more in real terms than they did in 1990. Meanwhile, social expenditures have more than doubled. Discussions about NATO budgets often revolve around whether a country allocates 2% of its GDP to defence. However, merely reaching the 2% GDP allocation for defence will not be enough even if improvements in efficiency are made.

If European leaders aim at generating the necessary funds by reducing spending in other areas—implementing taxes and borrowings—they will need to convince voters that the sacrifices are worthwhile. In Germany, which is expected to become the largest military spender in Europe, they will have to modify the debt limit specified in the constitution.

A plan by the European Commission to coordinate arms purchases has faced criticism from member-states, possibly because it would limit the influence of favoured defence industry leaders. Many Europeans who have experienced decades of reliance on the United States and have never known anything but peace are still avoiding the difficult decisions demanded by the Russian aggression.

The difficult choices also apply to nuclear weapons. Putin has threatened to escalate tensions to prevent the West from supplying Ukraine with advanced conventional weapons. Without the nuclear deterrent of the United States, Eastern European countries would be vulnerable to similar tactics. Can nuclear-armed countries, such as Britain and France, offer guarantees instead? If they do, will Putin believe them?

Focus on NATO a Wiser Choice: The risk is if Europe becomes entangled in debates about institutional beliefs. Some, particularly in France, suggest that the Continent should swiftly pursue strategic independence from the United States, preferably through the European Union. Focusing on NATO would be a wiser choice. The alliance has much greater capabilities and potential for growth compared to the EU’s early stage security operation.

It is logical to enhance the European role within NATO since the required military structures are already in place. This would also involve crucial non-EU allies in Europe’s defence—such as Britain, which is the largest military spender on the Continent; Norway, which shares a border with Russia; and Iceland, which controls access to the North Atlantic. Increasing Europe’s influence within NATO demonstrates a willingness to contribute more in hopes of retaining American involvement, while also preparing for the possibility of reduced American engagement.

Russia is not as wealthy, or populous, as Europe and President Putin’s actions indicate a declining power. However, Russia still possesses the capability to cause destruction and suffering to Europe. European nations have to be ready to take on Russia on their own without the U.S. help. (IPA Service)