Since President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the story of American and European officials is that Russia, a cannibal nation, is trying to dominate its neighbors, posing a serious military threat. for the whole of Europe. Finland and Sweden’s decision to join NATO bolstered this proposal, and the alliance appeared to have accepted it at face value during this week’s summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.
The West agrees that Putin has turned the Russian Army into a formidable fighting machine — an assessment illustrated in an Economist headline in late 2020, “Russia’s military force shines after a decade of reforms.”
In fact, the Russian military’s performance in Ukraine is nothing short of amazing. Although the $650 billion modernization effort began in 2010, it has seen surprisingly high levels. equipment losstens of thousands of casualties, continuously logistics error and mess combined armed operations. However, Europe acted as if it were incapable of stopping a Russian attack, continuing to turn to the United States for military support. At the Vilnius summit, Washington’s allies pledged, as they had done nearly a decade earlier, to increase military spending. But there is a difference between them on whether that number should act as the ceiling or the floor, Among other things.
It’s true that European countries’ take note during the 2014 NATO meeting instruct — 2% of members’ GDP in annual military spending and 20% of their military budgets on new equipment, research and development — has come to the fore. Between 2016 and 2022, only four to 10 NATO countries, including the United States, achieved the 2% target. That failure is not due to lack of resources but lack of political will; The dynamic deficit stems from a decades-long dependence on the United States. For its part, Washington has nurtured that dependence to increase revenue for its arms industry and, equally important, to reinforce Europe’s reliance on American power.
The argument that the rich, technologically advanced European nations cannot join forces to have enough military power to stop or defeat Russia is easy to believe. NATO’s 31st and newest member, Finland, and the next, Sweden, have a powerful army and Ukraine’s army – much more equipped, trained and combative than it was before 2022 – will also almost certainly come to Europe’s defense in the event of a Russian incident. attack. American military power would also be a credible addition. But ultimately, the reality is that the Europeans not only have the means to defend their continent, but have a much greater interest in it than the United States. Calling for European self-reliance does not mean advocating for the abolition of NATO. It’s time for Europe to get serious about defending itself.
Sixteen months after the war, there is no doubt that Russia has severely punished Ukraine, destroying nearly 138 billion USD (as of January) the value of infrastructure alone, according to the Kyiv School of Economics. (As for the loss of life, by mid-June, 9,083 civilians were killed and an additional 15,779 injured, according to the report. United Nation.) Having been to wartime Ukraine three times, including places near the eastern and southern fronts, I have witnessed some of the devastation first-hand. Photojournalism and reportage cannot be captured.
But Russia has not been able to turn its vast advantage in troops and weapons into anything resembling victory. Its difficulties were certainly compounded by more than 46 billion USD in U.S. military aid that Ukraine has received, along with additional support from NATO and other countries. But the Ukrainian Army prevented Russia’s opening attack on Kyiv even before American weapons began arriving in large numbers. Western weapons are part of the reason Russia is in trouble, but so are Ukraine’s strong morale and better command.
The rest of Europe, whose resources far outstrip Ukraine, are in an even stronger position. Compare Europe and Russia on any commonly used measure of power, and Europe is far superior. Take their gross domestic product. Last year the European Union was 16.6 trillion USDand Russia’s is 2.2 trillion USD. That means the European Union, even without Britain, still has an economy seven times larger than Russia’s.
What about technology, another important factor in contemporary warfare? Here things get more complicated, since no single statistic is suitable for unambiguous comparison. So let’s conduct a non-scientific thought experiment. Think of high-end electronics, luxury cars, or anything related to artificial intelligence that you have used or seen recently. I imagine that very few, if any, are of Russian descent. The mixed record of some of the top Russian equipment used on the Ukrainian battlefield proves this. Examination of destroyed or captured examples of some of Russia’s most advanced missiles, missiles, air defense systems, and even field radio shows that they all rely on important component made in the United States, Europe, Japan or Korea.
How does Europe stand up to Russia when it comes to numbers main weapon, such as tanks, fighters, battleships and artillery? Russia leads in several key categories but not mainly because of the overwhelming numerical advantage that an offensive force would require — typically three-on-one, a rule of thumb that can good organization. And Europe has the economic and technological means to boost its weapons production. England And continental European countries has world-class weapons industries, including giants such as Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Safran, Italy’s Leonardo and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
Realizing the potential for greater self-sufficiency will require substantial and coordinated investment in European arms production to avoid duplication and achieve a division of labor that maximizes comparative advantage. But these are virtually impossible tasks. The Europeans have demonstrated considerable success in collective action to overcome traditional barriers to national sovereignty. Consider landmark achievements such as the adoption of a single currency by 20 of the 27 EU countries, the establishment of the European Central Bank, and the Schengen agreement that abolished internal border controls.
The Russian army is not a paper tiger. But the right lesson to be drawn from the war in Ukraine is that Europeans are perfectly capable of taking on the primary responsibility to defend themselves.
That’s what they should do in their absolute self-interest. Like it or not, the US military’s focus will increasingly be on the Asia-Pacific this century. America’s European allies have agreed to play the role bigger role in Asia-Pacific security to help Washington counter Beijing’s growing power. Instead, they should focus on defending their continent. Europe should give up Debates spanning decades with the United States about better burden sharing and serious about shifting the burden.
Rajan Menon is the director of the grand strategy program at Defense Priorities, a senior fellow at the Saltzman Institute for Peace and War Studies at Columbia University, a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and an educator. Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the Powell School, City University of New York.
The Times is committed to publishing variety of letters to the editor. We’d love to hear your thoughts on this or any of our articles. Here are some advice. And here is our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) And Instagram.
