European nations could face a trillion-dollar rearmament bill in the face of a looming Russian threat and an imminent US defense review that could see Washington dramatically draw down forces on the continent, according to a report released on September 3.
The 106-page report, by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), points to gaps across the board: in production, intelligence, and military hardware such as long-range missiles or air and missile defense.
“Chief among the reasons for this greater urgency are Russia’s military threat and uncertainty over the United States’ commitment to defending European allies,” it says.
“While strategic assessments vary across European nations about how quickly Russian forces could constitute a direct threat to NATO Europe, their time frames generally range between two and five years.”
Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s Global Force Posture Review is expected to be published this month and lay out a shift in military resources from Europe to Asia/Pacific.
“Some NATO officials believe a US troops reduction of up to 30 percent could be possible,” says the report, entitled Progress and Shortfalls in Europe’s Defense: An Assessment.
Rising Military Budgets
European leaders have made plans this year to respond to these challenges. In March, a European Union summit pledged to spend billions on defense amid what EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called “a watershed moment for Europe.”
EU-backed loans of up to 150 billion euros (160 billion dollars) have been made available to member states to beef up their forces, and Eurozone debt rules have been relaxed when applied to military spending.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized European NATO allies for not spending enough on defense and relying too heavily on US military power. But he has recently praised them for pledging to spend more, particularly after the NATO summit in June when members agreed to raise defense budgets to 5 percent of GDP.
But the IISS report notes that it’s not just a question of money. A key problem will be building capacity.
“Europe’s defense industries continue to face challenges in increasing production fast enough, while many European armies cannot meet their recruitment and retention targets,” it says.
The IISS report underlines Integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) as an area where Europe is particularly vulnerable. Current and serving US military commanders have also told RFE/RL that Europe’s aerial shield is not prepared to meet the scale of the threat from Russia.
“You see what has happened in big cities in Ukraine. This also would happen in some of the big cities of Europe,” Philip Breedlove, former NATO supreme commander in Europe, told RFE/RL in April.
Long-Range Missiles
Another weakness highlighted in the IISS report is in long-range missiles.
European countries do have highly effective air-launched cruise missiles, such as the Anglo-French Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles, or Germany’s Taurus system. Non-NATO member Ukraine has recently showcased its new Flamingo cruise missiles.
But “only a handful of European allies currently possess ground-based long-range precision-fire systems, while in the maritime domain, only France and the UK hold 1,000 kilometer-range naval land-attack cruise missiles,” says the report.
“The European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA) project is potentially the most significant European effort to extend its conventional land-attack capability up to and perhaps beyond 2,000 km,” it adds.
The project, launched by France, Germany, Poland and Italy, was later joined by Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
Other weaknesses noted include a lack of surveillance and intelligence aircraft, “sovereign hyperscale cloud-computing capacity,” and slow, uncoordinated procurement.
The spending requirements come as European governments are already facing intense pressures on non-military spending in sensitive areas such health, education, and social benefits.
Meeting these challenges will, the report concludes, “require many NATO European allies to take major financial risks and make very difficult political decisions.”
Discussion about this post