In the wake of Europe and Ukraine expressing outrage over President Trump rescinding military support for Ukraine, European nations are finally taking steps to prepare their continent for its own defense—something the U.S. has shouldered for the past 80 years.
The proposed increases in defense spending at both the EU and national levels still fall far short of U.S. defense expenditures. And even if Europe were to match U.S. spending, it would never achieve military parity with the United States.
Ironically, while these increases are being made in defiance of the U.S., they align perfectly with what Trump has been demanding since his first term: that Europe boost its defense spending and ease the burden on America.
Another irony is that while European leaders are furious over U.S. military aid cuts to Ukraine, they themselves remain divided on direct military support.
Although EU leaders unanimously backed strengthening Europe’s defense capabilities, there was no consensus on aiding Ukraine, with Hungary outright opposing it.
Brussels estimates that its rearmament strategy could mobilize up to $850 billion by loosening EU deficit and debt rules and introducing a new $160 billion joint debt-financed credit instrument.
The plan also includes redirecting existing European regional funds and leveraging the European Investment Bank for defense financing. Some nations, including Spain and France, have pushed for a portion of these funds to be grants rather than loans.
This highlights another fundamental issue in Europe: some countries are relatively poor, and the socialist nature of their governments has accustomed them to expecting handouts rather than earning and spending on their own.
This raises a critical question—will countries like France and Spain fully commit to the plan if they are told they must repay the loans?
Key investment priorities include air and missile defense, artillery systems, drones, space technology, military mobility, cybersecurity, and electronic warfare, all functions which the U.S. is currently providing to Europe.
Proponents of rapid defense spending increases—such as Sweden, Finland, and Eastern European states—argue that Europe must urgently rearm, with some leaders calling for defense spending to exceed NATO’s 2% GDP target, potentially reaching 3%.
However, even at that level, Europe would still fall behind the U.S., whose defense spending exceeds 3% of GDP and is backed by an economy far larger than any European nation.
Even with its planned increases, Europe’s defense spending will still fall far short of that of the U.S., which has outspent Europe by a wide margin for the past 80 years. For Europe to catch up, it would need to significantly outspend the U.S., an unlikely scenario.
More concerning is that Europe appears determined to escalate tensions with Russia—a disastrous prospect given that Russia’s military is not only larger and more capable than the combined forces of Europe, but also possesses extensive wartime experience that Europe lacks.
Unlike Europe, Russia is already fully mobilized: its troops are conscripted, in uniform, and continuously replenished; its factories have been retooled to produce weapons and munitions; and its economy is insulated against sanctions.
Meanwhile, Europe remains unprepared for such a confrontation—not only in terms of military readiness but also in its continued dependence on Russian energy. Any notion of Europe engaging in a war with Russia would be a fool’s errand.
Furthermore, under NATO’s charter, the U.S. is not obligated to defend a member state that unilaterally instigates a war. Europe, as a whole, is not synonymous with NATO—just as Zelensky discovered, the U.S. has no obligation to defend non-NATO members that come under attack.
Any discussion of Europe increasing its defense spending or military preparedness ignores a critical reality: Europe is not a single country, nor does it have a unified army or command structure.
The continent’s nations are at vastly different levels of economic development and military preparedness, making coordinated action difficult. They are not poised to consolidate their forces under a single command or follow a coherent strategy.
Additionally, because each country maintains its own military, there are redundancies across various functions, further diluting the effectiveness of their defense budgets.
A clear example of how the media is misinterpreting Europe’s so-called military catch-up is Germany’s latest spending plans. Some reports falsely suggest that Germany is increasing military spending by $540 billion, but the reality is quite different.
The German government plans to bypass its constitutional debt brake to undertake significant new borrowing, allocating approximately $540 billion for infrastructure over the next decade.
This plan includes about $108 billion designated for the federal states, none of which is related to defense spending.
German authorities estimate that an additional $432 billion will be needed to modernize the military. However, Germany’s defense spending increase falls far short of this figure.
The $540 billion total spending plan is primarily for infrastructure, with at least $108 billion allocated to federal states, leaving the remainder for various non-defense projects.
The notion that Europe is meaningfully militarizing to catch up with the U.S. or prepare for war with Russia is not grounded in reality. While some countries have pledged defense increases, these are spread out over years and hampered by bureaucratic delays, economic constraints, and a lack of key military capabilities.
Much of the reported spending includes non-military projects like infrastructure and cybersecurity, further diluting its impact. Unlike the U.S., which provides strategic airlift, intelligence, and nuclear deterrence, European forces remain heavily dependent on American support.
Additionally, public opinion in many European nations remains skeptical of large-scale militarization, further limiting these efforts.
Ultimately, despite the rhetoric, Europe is not on a path to military self-sufficiency, nor is it preparing for a direct confrontation with Russia in any meaningful way.
