Can Europe Defend Itself?

Pax Americana, the term given to the American enforced peace in the West, has lasted for nearly 80 years
However, that peace is coming under increasing pressure
Domestic forces in the US, especially those aligned with Donald Trump, wish to realign the US to focus on China, leaving other regions, such as Europe, the Middle East, and rest of Asia to fend for themselves
Russia and China are maneuvering to take advantage of this potential retreat
US military strategists assume that a future war will be a two-front war
Even if one of the fronts remains "cold" the US will have to hold back enough reserves to deal with a second adversary

Hands Tied

The strength of the US military doesn't necessarily represent what the US can send to Europe
In the best case, the US would only be able to deploy 60% of its military strength to the theater that has priority
Of that 60% only about 45% would actually be immediately deployable
- Maintenance needs
- Logistical challenges
In practice this means that out of 450,000 active duty soldiers in the US Army, approximately 122,000 could be sent to Europe at short notice
Of 2,600 tanks, approximately 700 could be sent to Europe
Of 40 submarines, approximately 4 would be deployed
This means that, regardless of Donald Trump's election, Europe must be capable of waging war

On paper, European NATO forces should be more than a match for Russia
Example: NATO has 6,600 tanks, compared to roughly 2000 for Russia
However The majority of these tanks are outdated or mothballed tanks held in Greek and Turkish inventories
In other areas, such as surface-to-air missile systems, NATO is inferior to Russia, even on paper

The most likely scenario for a conflict between NATO and Russia is a Russian attack on one of the Baltic states
For example, Russia could attack Lithuania with a multi-pronged attack originating from both Russia and Belarus
Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, is only 30 km from the Belarusian border, and thus would be in range of Russian artillery
The NATO Enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup in Lithuania, a NATO unit consisting of several thousand troops which will include a mechanized brigade from Germany starting in 2027, is destroyed under overwhelming Russian artillery and missile strikes
This occurs within 3-4 days, faster than NATO rapid reaction forces can mobilize
Russian forces would occupy Vilnius and use the threat of nuclear retaliation to deter NATO from mounting a military operation to liberate Lithuania
The problem with this scenario is that it goes against everything that we've learned about the Russian military over 2.75 years of war in Ukraine
The Russian military does nothing fast
When it attempts to go fast, it is ineffective and takes great losses for little gain
If Russia attempts to mount a lightning offensive towards Vilnius, my prediction is that it will go about as well as Russia's lightning offensive towards Kyiv
I think it's far more realistic for Russia to launch attacks on disputed border territories, attempting to draw NATO forces into a long war of attrition as in Ukraine

Russia could exploit a quick success in the Baltics to draw NATO into a long war of attrition
At the same time, China could attempt to draw the US into a war in East Asia
In this scenario, Russia would have a numerical advantage of NATO, as Russia would be able to deploy more of its military, more quickly, than NATO could

The Russian goal is to draw a front line across the Baltics or through the Suwalki Gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus
Russian forces would dig in, as they have done in Ukraine, and protect themselves with belts of mines and fixed fortifications
NATO forces outside of the United States do not currently have enough engineering and mine clearing equipment to punch holes in fixed fortifications
Furthermore, the US plays a critical role as an integrator of the various NATO militaries by providing command and control systems which allow various NATO units to coordinate

In theory Germany could take over this "integrator" role from the US
However, German military capabilities are far from sufficient for it to serve such a role today
No non-US NATO country has enough support units to lead army corps (50,000 troops) sized units
- Aviation
- Missile defense
- Reconnaissance
- Logistics
Europe also lacks the practical experience to coordinate forces this large without US assistance

Despite EU talk of "strategic autonomy", Europe will have severe difficulty defending itself without significant US assistance
In order to build real strategic autonomy, Europe will have to invest immediately in 9 areas:
1. Command systems
2. Reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition
3. Long-range precision weapons
4. Air and missile defense systems
5. Electronic warfare
6. Cyber warfare
7. Logistics and sustainability
8. Strategic and tactical air support
9. Engineer troops
European gaps in capabilities here are enormous
- For example, to defend the Baltics, 70 to 90 long-range air defense systems would be required to protect NATO troops
- Approximately another 50 would be required to protect cities and critical infrastructure
- European forces alone can only provide 36 long-range air defense systems in total, and some of them have already been committed to Ukraine
These shortages cannot be remedied quickly — it can take up to four years for a Patriot system to be delivered after the purchase order has been signed
European forces also lack mass
- At the end of the Cold War, the Bundeswehr had 215 combat battalions
- Today that is down to 34
- And among those 34, there are significant operational readiness problems — in a recent military exercise one division had all 18 of its Puma armored vehicles break down

Regardless of who is President of the United States, the US will not intervene with its full military might in a Baltic war scenario
The US must reserve a significant portion of its military strength to deal with China — this constraint remains regardless of which party controls the White House

The economic power of the West is superior to that of Russia and China
If the West were determined to translate that economic power into military might, it would be able to deter Russia and China from further aggression
However, it is far from certain that such determination exists
Even if the West rearms, it's unclear that it has the political will to fight a long war of attrition

Regardless of who is President, the US will not be able to respond with 100% of its capabilities to a European war scenario
Europe must become strong enough to deter a Russian attack on its own