Published on: June 26, 2025 / update from: June 26, 2025 - Author: Konrad Wolfenstein
Europe's awakening from security -political convenience - Image: Xpert.digital
Superficial reporting overlooks: Trump's NATO analysis hits the core of European defense deficits
Europe's awakening from security -political convenience
The criticized headlines about the “Schleimer summit” and the “submissiveness” of NATO partners to Donald Trump miss the actual dimension of current security policy developments. This superficial representation overlooks the fundamental weaknesses of the European defense architecture, which Trump relentlessly revealed with his direct criticism.
Suitable for:
The reality of European defense dependency
The structural dependence on the United States is actually more serious than in public debate. The European NATO countries are currently unable to run a large association like a corps with up to 50,000 soldiers without American support. This leadership weakness extends across all military dimensions: from strategic planning to operational implementation.
The United States acts as an indispensable integrator of the various national armed forces in Europe. Only the USA have the necessary structures, command centers, management systems and the associated rods in order to effectively and efficiently coordinate the activities of the entire NATO in an emergency. These management skills are also underlaid with strategic support forces such as AWACS aircraft and tanker-skills through which Europeans only have very little.
Structural deficits in numbers
A current analysis by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the Brussels Research Institute Bruegel illustrates the extent of European dependency: If the United States withdraws, the Europeans would have to set up around 50 additional brigades with a total of 300,000 soldiers. At least 1,400 new battle tanks and 2,000 stirrups would be required for this - which exceeds the current stocks of the entire German, French, Italian and British land forces.
The financial dimensions are also impressive: Significant investments of around 250 billion euros annually would be necessary for an independent European defense. This corresponds to an increase in European defense expenditure from the current two percent to 3.5 to four percent of economic strength.
NATO resolutions from Den Haag as a strategic necessity
The NATO summit in the Haag has initiated a historic turn with the agreement of the five percent goal. The NATO countries undertake to invest five percent of the gross domestic product in defense and security annually at the latest from 2035. This drastic increase in two percent has been differentiated so far: 3.5 percent for the core areas of defense such as troops and weapons, another 1.5 percent for extended security -relevant investments such as cyber security and military -usable infrastructure.
This decision is by no means opportunistic submissiveness, but a long overdue adaptation to the changed security policy reality. In 2024, only 22 of the 32 NATO members spent two percent or more of their GDP for defense. Poland led more than four percent, while Spain was less than 1.3 percent at the lower end.
Matches:
Technological dependencies as a strategic risk
The dependence of Europe on American key technologies is a significant strategic risk. Many of the most modern weapon systems that are used by European countries, such as the F-35 combat jets and patriot defense systems, rely on continuous support from the USA. These systems require regular software updates, GPS releases and communication signals from American networks.
A particularly critical example is the F-35 fight jets: the complete control over the software of these jets is in the hands of the US manufacturer Lockheed Martin, which could deactivate the US army at any time. This technological dependency also extends to satellite navigation, where Europe is still strongly dependent on American GPS services despite its own Galileo system.
The fragmented European defense industry
The structural problems of the European defense industry additionally increase the dependence on the United States. The production of armaments in the EU countries is strongly fragmented and serves multi-track, inefficient structures. This fragmentation leads to higher costs, longer development times and reduced scale effects.
A concrete example of this problem is evident in ammunition production: Germany is not alone with a deficit of ammunition - even a week of ammunition supply would already be wishful thinking for the Bundeswehr. NATO sets 30 days of ammunition as the goal, but this is currently “unthinkable” for Germany.
Suitable for:
Threat scenarios: Russia and China
The threat has been fundamentally tightened since 2022. Despite high losses in the Ukraine War, Russia increased its military capacities massively and recorded around 700,000 soldiers in Ukraine at the end of 2024-significantly more than in the large-scale invasion 2022. At the same time, around 1,550 new tanks and 5,700 armored vehicles were produced or repaired.
China is an additional strategic challenge. As the second largest military power in the world, China has been working on the modernization of his military for years, which is to be converted into a “world-class” army by 2050. China's support for Russia is particularly worrying: China has exceeded its own red lines and now delivers deadly drones to Russia.
NATO Europe without the USA: military reality
A current Greenpeace study shows that NATO Europe is militarily superior to Russia even without the United States. The European NATO partners have 2,073 fighter planes without the USA and Canada, while Russia has 2,141. The European NATO countries also exceed Russia significantly at the military budget.
Nevertheless, there are serious weaknesses: Europe has around one million not otherwise bound ground troops on paper, but in practice this number is significantly lower. Only a few countries come to almost 100,000 active soldiers. France and Greece lead with around 98,000 or 92,000 soldiers, followed by Italy and Poland with around 89,000 each.
Ammunition and production deficits
European armaments production lags behind the requirements dramatically. Europe consumes more ammunition every day in the Ukraine War than can be produced. Ex-general Marc Thys warned urgently: "It is not a joke, we are deep in the shit. It will take five to seven years to upgrade western industry so that it is deterrent".
Germany is trying to remedy: Rheinmetall wants to captivate its capacity in artillery ammunition until 2026. A framework contract with the Bundeswehr for Artillery ammunition includes projectiles worth up to 8.5 billion euros. Nevertheless, there are systemic problems: Germany often only buys floors instead of complete shots, which restricts operational operational capacity.
Nuclear dimension of dependency
The nuclear deterrence in Europe is based almost exclusively on the United States nuclear weapons in the context of nuclear. American nuclear weapons are stored in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and Germany. Trump's repeated questioning of NATO assistance has triggered a debate about European nuclear weapons, including a possible Europeanization of the French nuclear umbrella or even nuclear armament in Germany.
Trump's legitimate criticism
The superficial criticism of NATO partners as a “slime” fails to recognize the strategic dimension of current developments. Trump's criticism of inadequate European defense contributions is not only justified, but strategically necessary. For decades, Europeans have set up in security -political convenience and neglected their defense skills.
The structural dependencies on American leadership skills, key technologies and logistical capacities are so serious that Europe would not be able to defend its security interests independently without fundamental reforms. The resolutions of the Haag do not mark submissiveness, but the overdue start of a strategic realignment.
Europe has to face reality: the time of security policy convenience is over
. The geopolitical challenges by Russia and China, combined with the American turn to the Indo-Pacific, require a fundamental strengthening of European defense skills. Trump's “shaking wake” was not only justified, but strategically necessary for Europe's future of security.
Suitable for:
- European military logistics according to the US model? Strategic teaching and a timetable for European defense logistics
- Think of defense again: What Europe and NATO can learn from China's global military logistics and AI use
Advice - planning - implementation
Markus Becker
I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.
Head of Business Development
Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group
Hub for security and defense - advice and information
Hub for security and defense - Image: Xpert.digital
The hub for security and defense offers well-founded advice and current information in order to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defense policy. In close connection to the SME Connect working group, he promotes small and medium -sized companies (SMEs) in particular that want to further expand their innovative strength and competitiveness in the field of defense. As a central point of contact, the hub creates a decisive bridge between SME and European defense strategy.
Suitable for:
