Can Europe ensure Ukraine's security?
In the near future, we are likely to face serious diplomatic battles that will determine the fate of Ukraine and the security configuration on the European continent. Despite the geographical proximity of European states, it seems that the decisive word in this matter will rest with the USA. Official Brussels will play a supporting role. Nevertheless, the new administration of Donald Trump periodically sends signals that it is now time for Europe to bear the main burden of countering Russian imperialism. But is the Old World capable of handling such a responsible mission?
On February 9, U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz stated that Europe should take on security guarantees for Ukraine after the war. The U.S. should cover the costs of military assistance to Ukraine in exchange for access to rare earth metals.
“The key principle here is that Europeans must take on this conflict. President Trump is going to put an end to it, and then, in terms of security guarantees, it will definitely be up to the Europeans,” Waltz said in an interview with NBC News. However, there are several significant reasons why modern Europe may struggle with such an ambitious task.
European countries, after the end of the "Cold War," to some extent, mirrored Ukraine's path and massively reduced their armies and defense spending. As part of this trend, most states on the continent transitioned to a professional army and abandoned the practice of nationwide conscription for military service. A professional army undoubtedly has its advantages. However, it features significantly fewer personnel. Moreover, as European experience shows, it is easy to abolish universal military service, but restoring it in case of emergencies is very challenging.
All European armies have undergone serious reductions since the collapse of the USSR. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Russian armed forces currently number about 1.1 million soldiers. France has the largest army among EU countries, with around 270,000 troops. Germany follows with 183,000, Italy with 165,000, the United Kingdom with 144,000, Greece with 142,000, Spain with 120,000, and Poland with 114,000 soldiers. Such forces are insufficient to effectively deter potential aggression or reliably guarantee security. For comparison, in the 1990s, the German Bundeswehr had 534,000 soldiers, the French armed forces had 499,000 personnel, and the British army had over 300,000 troops.
In addition to the reduction in personnel, there has been a continual decline in the amount of military equipment held by European countries since the early 1990s. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the naval power of the continent has halved since 1990. In 1990, European countries had 200 large surface combatants and 129 submarines, while in 2021, they had 116 and 66, respectively. While the air power of leading military states in Europe is still maintained at a relatively high level, the number of ground military units is too modest to represent a serious force. For instance, the United Kingdom has 213 tanks, 71 self-propelled artillery units, Italy has 200 tanks and 64 self-propelled artillery units, France has 222 tanks and 96 self-propelled artillery units, and Germany has 295 tanks and 134 self-propelled artillery units.
We have become accustomed to viewing Europe as the economic center of the planet with the highest standard of living. To some extent, this still holds true. However, the reality is different. The economic power of the EU on a global scale has been steadily declining since the beginning of the 21st century. While the countries of the former socialist bloc still demonstrate noticeable GDP growth rates, the economies of Western Europe have developed too slowly for at least the last two decades. Moreover, Europe's GDP growth has been the lowest on the planet among other regions for many years. In 2024, the EU's economy grew by 0.8%. In comparison, the GDP of the U.S. grew by 2.8% last year, China's by 5%, and India's by almost 7%. In 2008, the economies of the Eurozone and the U.S. were nearly identical, exceeding $14 trillion. In 2024, the EU's GDP is estimated at $18.98 trillion, while the U.S. economy is one and a half times larger, around $29 trillion. China's economic strength is on the verge of surpassing that of Europe, with its GDP exceeding $18.2 trillion in 2024.
In September of last year, former European Central Bank (ECB) head and former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi presented a report on the future competitiveness of Europe. The document outlined grim realities that indicate a dangerous loss of competitiveness for the EU. The decline in economic power and technological lag behind the U.S. and China will sooner or later translate into a weakening of geopolitical influence. Europe needs serious reforms if it plans to remain a global power in the future. Additionally, it requires a noticeable increase in labor productivity and the dismantling of unnecessary bureaucratic regulations.
Europe is also experiencing an ideological crisis and undergoing a period of complex social transformations. The reassessment of its colonial past has led to the formation of a painful guilt complex in many countries. The policy of multiculturalism, implemented by leading political forces over several decades, has proven to be misguided. The sudden influx of tens of millions of people from other cultures and civilizations into Europe has resulted in increased social tension, rising crime rates, and the emergence of parallel communities that are not integrated into Western society. Gradually, the issue of migration has come to the forefront among the problems that concern Europeans the most. Traditional left- and right-leaning parties long preferred to ignore this issue or treated it lightly. The justified and understandable social dissatisfaction with traditional political parties has reshaped the political landscape and opened new opportunities for the rise of populists, including those sympathetic to Russia and supported by it.
It is understandable why Washington wants to shift the entire security burden onto Europe. However, this does not respond to the challenges of the times and does not take into account the global level of threat posed by Russia to the entire free world. The problem is that modern Europe may not be able to handle such a responsible and heavy mission. Not because it doesn't want to (although that factor also exists), but primarily because it lacks the necessary military, organizational, and leadership capabilities. In other historical epochs, security guarantees from leading European powers would have been sufficient for Ukraine. Once, the military might of Great Britain, France, and Germany even surpassed that of the United States. But now, circumstances are somewhat different. There are reasonable doubts that modern Europe can guarantee Ukraine genuine security against the recurrence of Russian aggression.
Europeans are partially aware of their vulnerability and excessive dependence on American military power. However, they are doing too little to rectify the situation. Even three years into the full-scale war in Europe, there are still eight NATO member states that have not yet managed to reach the defense spending level of 2% of GDP. In 2014, only three countries in the North Atlantic Alliance spent more than 2% of GDP on defense. Discussions about forming European armed forces began immediately after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Yet substantial reforms have yet to take on real shape. It is doubtful that we will see any viable and effective alternative to NATO in the near future.
The future of Europe looks uncertain. The countries of the continent need to resolve many military, economic, social, and ideological issues. If Europe does not change, or if these changes are too slow and half-hearted, its influence on global processes will continue to decline. In the worst-case scenario, in a few years, this could lead to the collapse and fragmentation of the EU. Europe is undoubtedly our natural ally in the struggle against Russian imperialism. However, relying on it as a security guarantor would be a risky decision.