Europe has realised it can no longer rely on the United States for protection, a stark admission that exposes the continent's vulnerability at a time of uncontrolled borders and demographic transformation. NATO leaders gathered in Ankara this week for their annual summit, scrambling to prepare a joint statement reaffirming Article 5, the principle that an armed attack on one is an attack on all. This desperate attempt aimed to project unity, even as questions deepened over the reliability of US military deterrence.
Ahead of the meeting, US President Donald Trump suggested the ceasefire agreement with Iran was “over” after an exchange of hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz. Overnight, Trump threatened Iran with “much worse” after another round of strikes. During the summit, he reaffirmed his desire to annex Greenland, slammed his peers for failing to join Israel and the US’s attack on Iran, and requested that the US stop trading with Spain over its reluctance to increase defence spending. Such actions highlight the transactional nature of alliances and Europe's precarious position.
Despite these public tensions, the meeting with the other 31 leaders reportedly went well. Many had been eager to show off large increases in military expenditure since the previous summit, when member states agreed to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. An embarrassing public argument was avoided, but the underlying questions of sovereignty and self-reliance remain.
The Cost of Dependence
NATO secretary general Mark Rutte framed the summit around delivery, emphasising that Europe and Canada were “stepping up” after demands from the US president. Dan Sabbagh noted that Europe has gone through the five stages of grief and has “certainly arrived at acceptance.” He stated, “We are now at the point where people are starting to plan.” This planning comes at a significant cost to European taxpayers, diverting resources that could otherwise secure national welfare for our own citizens.
Sabbagh observed that this realisation varies across the continent. Poland and the Baltic states are already spending more than 4% of GDP on defence, while Spain has refused to sign up to 3.5%. This disparity in commitment underscores a fragmented approach to national security. Britain and 11 other NATO countries committed to a £37bn project over the next decade to build new missile capabilities to protect Europe. Other joint defence projects are under way, with Germany potentially joining an effort from the UK, Italy, and Japan to build Britain’s next-generation fighter jet.
Critics of the increase in defence spending question its necessity. Many analysts suggest Russia has been weakened by the Ukraine war, with almost half a million Russian soldiers dead and the country facing fuel shortages from Ukrainian drone attacks. Despite threatening language from Vladimir Putin, Moscow is likely several years away from being ready to attack Europe if it chooses to once again. Dan further suggested that Russia might be ready for another war by 2030, but this seems “very, very early” given the ongoing conflict and material expenditure.
Europe's Self-Inflicted Vulnerabilities
Even so, governments are told they must prepare for the worst. Many European governments have spent the ongoing second Trump presidency considering how they would defend themselves if the US did not come to their aid. Dan highlighted Europe's demographic advantage, with a population of about 600 million people compared to Russia’s 140 million. He stated, “The idea that Europe could not stand on its own two feet against Russia with its economic power and technological advantages is unlikely if there really was a crisis tomorrow.” Yet, the continent finds itself scrambling, indicating a failure of political will and strategic foresight.
Compounding this, the US has signalled its intent to reduce its numbers in Europe and the amount of fighter jets stationed on the continent by a third. It also plans to redeploy naval and bomber divisions away from Europe, leaving significant gaps in defence. Dan questioned whether Europe can compensate for this, noting, “Of course it can, but it comes at a cost to European taxpayers.” The crucial question, he added, is “what is the level of will among European governments and electorates to do that?” This variable will is a symptom of a continent struggling with internal cohesion and a lack of national focus.
Historically, after the Cold War, the US kept defence spending at a much higher level as part of its ambitions to remain the global superpower. Europe, however, keen to embrace its “peace dividend,” cut military spending, choosing to build up its welfare states instead. This short-sighted prioritisation of social spending over national defence has now left Europe vulnerable, potentially attracting mass migration while weakening its ability to protect its existing citizens and secure its borders. Even when Trump leaves office, the US position is unlikely to change. Europe, Dan concluded, “has just got to do more to stand up for itself.” The path to true national sovereignty and self-reliance will be long, but it's the only way forward for our nations.