I am not a military expert, so that's certainly a reason why I can't follow everything in this article.
-
I am not a military expert, so that's certainly a reason why I can't follow everything in this article. The Bruegel analysis the Economist mentions, however, says:
From a macroeconomic perspective, the numbers are small enough for Europe to replace the US fully. Since February 2022, US military support to Ukraine has amounted to €64 billion, while Europe, including the United Kingdom, sent €62 billion. In 2024, US military support amounted to €20 billion out of a total of €42 billion. To replace the US, the EU would thus have to spend only another 0.12 percent of its GDP – a feasible amount [...]
A significantly more challenging scenario for Europe would be an unlikely peace deal accepted by Ukraine. In such a scenario, Russia is likely to continue its military build-up, creating a formidable military challenge to all of the EU in a very short period, given current Russian production. The EU and allies including the UK and Norway would need to accelerate their military build-ups immediately and massively [...]
It also says:
A Russian attack on a European Union country is thus conceivable. Assessments by NATO, Germany, Poland, Denmark and the Baltic states put Russia as ready to attack within three to ten years 4 . It could be sooner [...]
Europe’s first priority is to continue supporting Ukraine – Ukraine’s experienced military is currently the most effective deterrent against a Russian attack on the EU. If Ukraine decides that a US-Russian deal to end the war is unacceptable – because Putin’s peace guarantees are not credible, for example – Europe is capable of providing additional weapons to Ukraine to ensure its fighting capacities remain as they are currently. Ukraine and the EU rely on some critical US strategic enablers, including intelligence and satellite communications. These are difficult to replace in the short term but there are substitutes if necessary [...]
Rapidly generating such increases [in military equipment and production] requires an extraordinary effort, though experience [in Eruope] shows market economies can do it [...]
Bruegel says -unsurprisingly- that Europe must significantly increase its defense spending, and also makes suggestions how this could be done best (amongst others, by replacing the US military-industrial base). Overall it provides a different picture than the Economist imho.
-
System shared this topic on
-
I am not a military expert, so that's certainly a reason why I can't follow everything in this article. The Bruegel analysis the Economist mentions, however, says:
From a macroeconomic perspective, the numbers are small enough for Europe to replace the US fully. Since February 2022, US military support to Ukraine has amounted to €64 billion, while Europe, including the United Kingdom, sent €62 billion. In 2024, US military support amounted to €20 billion out of a total of €42 billion. To replace the US, the EU would thus have to spend only another 0.12 percent of its GDP – a feasible amount [...]
A significantly more challenging scenario for Europe would be an unlikely peace deal accepted by Ukraine. In such a scenario, Russia is likely to continue its military build-up, creating a formidable military challenge to all of the EU in a very short period, given current Russian production. The EU and allies including the UK and Norway would need to accelerate their military build-ups immediately and massively [...]
It also says:
A Russian attack on a European Union country is thus conceivable. Assessments by NATO, Germany, Poland, Denmark and the Baltic states put Russia as ready to attack within three to ten years 4 . It could be sooner [...]
Europe’s first priority is to continue supporting Ukraine – Ukraine’s experienced military is currently the most effective deterrent against a Russian attack on the EU. If Ukraine decides that a US-Russian deal to end the war is unacceptable – because Putin’s peace guarantees are not credible, for example – Europe is capable of providing additional weapons to Ukraine to ensure its fighting capacities remain as they are currently. Ukraine and the EU rely on some critical US strategic enablers, including intelligence and satellite communications. These are difficult to replace in the short term but there are substitutes if necessary [...]
Rapidly generating such increases [in military equipment and production] requires an extraordinary effort, though experience [in Eruope] shows market economies can do it [...]
Bruegel says -unsurprisingly- that Europe must significantly increase its defense spending, and also makes suggestions how this could be done best (amongst others, by replacing the US military-industrial base). Overall it provides a different picture than the Economist imho.
The report also just stops very short of saying the quiet part out loud: the strategy so far has been to use Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn to bog down Russia. This cynical strategy worked so far, but there are signs that the Ukrainians don't want to take part in this any longer, and this is what has all the military analysts running around like headless chicken right now. Trump is basically just accellerating the inevitable.
What lessens we can take from that and what the best new strategy will be is disputed right now.
-
The report also just stops very short of saying the quiet part out loud: the strategy so far has been to use Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn to bog down Russia. This cynical strategy worked so far, but there are signs that the Ukrainians don't want to take part in this any longer, and this is what has all the military analysts running around like headless chicken right now. Trump is basically just accellerating the inevitable.
What lessens we can take from that and what the best new strategy will be is disputed right now.
The problem is going to be deciding what the peace looks like.
Russia is asking for more land than it controls and doesn't provide security guarantees to Ukraine, opening Ukraine up to a possible third invasion in the near future.
Ukraine seems open to accepting its current losses, but likely needs security guarantee by some entity powerful enough to deter a third invasion. You also have NATO/EU nations being unwilling to withdraw troops from nations bordering Russia because this is the second time Russia has invaded a neighboring country in 11 years and these nations aren't belligerents yet.
-
System shared this topic on
