Can Europe deter Russia without US military?

Donald Trump seems to have more confidence in the capacities of the armed forces of Great Britain than some of his own generals, or, in the case, many of the main military brasss retired from Great Britain.

When asked in his press conference with the United Kingdom Prime Minister about the security guarantees of the United States for Ukraine, Trump said: “The British have incredible soldiers, incredible military and can take care of themselves.”

However, the president of the United States left the question hanging in the air about whether the United Kingdom’s army could face Russia.

In public, the senior US military officers rush to praise the professionalism of the Armed Forces of Great Britain. But in private, they are often very critical of recent cuts to their size, especially for the British army, which now has just over 70,000 regular troops.

“Too small” is what a very high general of the United States said in a private informative session on a visit to the United Kingdom.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Russia’s military spending is now higher than the total defense spending of Europe, in terms of purchasing parity power. It increases by 41% and is now the equivalent of 6.7% of GDP. In contrast, the United Kingdom will spend only 2.5% by 2027.

President Trump’s comments underline the reality that he is not contemplating to put American troops on the field in Ukraine to monitor any high fire. Any presence of the United States will be economic, to exploit mining interests.

He suggests that in itself it could be a deterrent element for Russia to attack again. But even his administration believes that there must also be some hard power, provided by others. It will depend on European nations to do that. The question is not only if Europe has the will: do you have the numbers too?

The short answer is no. That is why Sir Keir Starmer has been pressing for security guarantees of the additional United States of the most powerful army in the world.

Great Britain is not alone in cutting her armed forces in response at the end of the cold war. That trend in Europe is slowly invested, with more nations that increase defense expense.

But Europe, by itself, could not provide a force of 100-200,000 international troops, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky suggests that it would be needed to deter Russia to attack again.

Instead, Western officials have said they are thinking about a force of up to 30,000 troops. European aircraft and warships would help monitor Ukraine airspace and shipping lanes.

That force would focus on providing “tranquility” on the key sites: the cities, ports and nuclear centrals of Ukraine. They would not be placed anywhere near the current front lines in eastern Ukraine. European combat aircraft and warships would also monitor airspace and shipping lanes of Ukraine.

But these same Western officials recognize that this would not be sufficient, therefore, the calls to a “support” of the United States: “to have the confidence that the forces will not be challenged by Russia” and “give the prime minister the confidence that British forces can deploy safely.”

The authorities believe that, at least, the United States could supervise any European force with a “command and control element” and the combat planes of the United States ready to respond from its air bases in Poland and Romania. Europe cannot match the surveillance or collection capacities of American intelligence in space.

He could also accept to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine.

Although Europe has recently surpassed the United States in terms of the proportion of western weapons supplied to Ukraine, a western source said that the United States had provided “cream”, as long -range missiles and air defense systems.

The European nations do not have the necessary facilitators to carry out large -scale military operations on their own. The supply of Western weapons to Ukraine has depended on American logistics.

The NATO bombing campaign on Libya in 2011 also highlighted the deficiencies, since European nations supposedly take the lead, but still depend on the support of the United States. The allies trusted us by replenishing the tankers and the orientation of the United States.

But Sir Keir Starmer seems to have left Washington without any guarantee of US military support. In statements to the BBC this morning, the Secretary of Health of the United Kingdom, Wes Streeting, suggested that Donald Trump’s reimbursement to article 5 of NATO, so an attack against an ally would be interpreted as an attack against all, it could be sufficient.

But the Secretary of Defense of the United States, Pete Hegseth, has previously stated that any international troop sent to Ukraine will not be a NATO force or covered by his treaty. At present, there is no such assurance guarantee in the style of NATO.

The willpower of Europe is being proven. The prime minister, who is calling a leaders meeting this weekend, will soon discover whether Donald Trump’s warm words are enough to convince others to join the United Kingdom to put boots on the ground.

France is the only other important European power that until now seems willing to do the same. Some nations of northern Europe, Denmark, Sweden and Baltic states are willing to consider a commitment, but again they would like US security guarantees. Spain, Italy and Germany oppose so far.

Sir Keir can still believe that there is space for negotiation, that the United States could still be willing to support a European force. But as for Donald Trump’s question, could Great Britain face Russia’s military? Although Russian forces have weakened, the answer is no.