Can Europe provide a credible response in Ukraine?

“It is certainly a way of focusing our minds, and wallets! Donald Trump is doing us a favor, Yeah We chose to think about it in that way. And we can also look at the positive side. Otherwise, these times are too dark. “

The words of a diplomat from an important European country, speaking after Donald Trump turned off the military aid tap to Ukraine on Monday. He asked not to be named, so he can share his thoughts more freely.

The implacability and the rhythm of change in Washington can be dizzying. Not only for news consumers but also for politicians.

Europe is fighting to react effectively.

There has been a frenzy of diplomatic activity: bilateral telephone calls of night leaders, curled up in London and in Paris, meetings of NATO defense ministers in Brussels. An emergency security summit of EU leaders is also scheduled this Thursday.

It is a great moment in European history.

Most European countries believe that the security of all of Europe, not only the sovereignty of Ukraine, is at stake, with Russia that seeks to dismantle the balance of western orientation power, since the end of the cold war.

Washington, who has had Europe’s back in terms of security and defense since World War II, now seems to “not worry about the fate of Europe,” according to the man prepared to be the next leader of the largest economy in the continent, Friedrich Merz in Germany.

But what are all renowned European meetings and summits?

Only a few hours before Washington stopping military aid to KyivPrime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer, who is taking an advantage in Europe over Ukraine, He announced that it was time for “action, no words”. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that Europe must turn Ukraine into a “steel pork”, with urgent and extra weapons.

Can the continent really act as one? Europe is a total sum of different countries with budgets of different sizes and various national policies and priorities.

Europe’s goal to take this defense action is also double:

First, show Donald Trump that, in the words of the United Kingdom Prime Minister, Europe will now do the “heavy work” to defend himself. Europe hopes to persuade Trump to restart his military support to Ukraine and maintain the current security support from the United States for Europe in general, if he believes that they are no longer “free” from the United States.

But also, European leaders will need to urgently boost their own defenses and support kyiv anyway, if Donald Trump moves away from Ukraine and later, from Europe more widely in terms of security.

It is not just for Washington that Europe feels that it has a point to demonstrate.

Russia is also looking.

The various European European emergency meetings of high profile and great success now must produce rapid, impressive and practical results, otherwise in the eyes of the Kremlin, Europe seems weak and vulnerable.

Moscow has already been given to the “divisions” you see in Western Unit.

Donald Trump says he trusts Vladimir Putin, but has been scathing for NATO’s allies and called President of Ukraine, a dictator.

Russia knows that, despite the fact that the European talk is now defended by decay, any security expert with whom he speaks admits that, at least in the short to medium term, Europe still needs the United States.

That is why last week in Washington, we saw the French president and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, separately, courting Donald Trump.

The United States has filled the yawns holes in European defense, left by years of chronic subvestment after the end of the cold war.

The number of troops in Europe decreased with the end of recruitment in most European countries. The United States has approximately 100,000 troops and nuclear weapons in several parts of Europe under NATO nuclear exchange policy. Many of them are in the European non -nuclear power of Germany, which fears being severely exposed to Russia if Donald Trump withdraws support.

If the United Kingdom and France manage to gather what they call a “coalition of the provisions”, European countries that agree to send even a modest number of peace maintenance troops to Ukraine once the fire is remembered, which could stretch the European armies and expose gaps in NATO’s defenses.

That is why Poland is not willing to commit troops to that “coalition.” He says he needs to keep soldiers at home, to defend himself from Russia. He also fervently expects that the United States does not take its east European troops.

But Europe also depends on the US for military capacities that ensure the soft operation of operations. These are known as “enablers.”

Ukraine leans strongly in American intelligence, for example, to maintain a strong hand against Russia.

A European Peace Maintenance Force or “Tranquility” in Ukraine would need US support to establish an air shield on Ukraine. Europe lacks air refueling capabilities to air, as well as ammunition that could eliminate aerial defenses in Russia if necessary.

These facilitators “cannot be bought in a hurry in local cash and transport” as a European politician expressed to me.

This is the reason why the United Kingdom, France and others in Europe are so interested in keeping the United States aboard as long as possible.

“Some of my dear European colleagues should probably avoid tweet with anger,” a frustrated diplomat of a high profile nation told me.

We were arguing European outrage for the treatment of the president of Ukraine by the president and vice president of the United States at the Oval office on Friday.

“Real leadership is not about leaving Steam online. It’s about finding the right words to advance constructively, however, complicated is the situation.

“Do we need continuous support from the United States in Ukraine and Europe? Do we have more in common with the United States than with China? Those are the fundamental questions that we must take into account.”

Another fundamental question for Europe is, of course, how much effective is needed and how quickly the defense is increased.

In Ukraine, Europe could easily replace the current support of the United States, if it happened.

Germany is the largest donor of military aid for Ukraine after the United States. If other European powers followed their example, he says, the defense of Ukraine would be covered in the predictable future.

Berlin and other countries in northern Europe express resentment against France, for example, that they say, talk a lot about the defense of Ukraine, and is strong in leadership and strategy, but in fact it has donated relatively little.

As for the broader defense expense, the head of the EU Ursula von der Leyen commission declared on Tuesday that “Europe is in an era of re-armament.”

She suggested that the EU alone could mobilize a total of 800 billion euros for defense expenditure for:

1. Using your joint budget more creatively
2. Provide 150 billion euros on loans to benefit the EU defense as a whole, for example, in air defense and antimiles, anti-Drone systems and military mobility
3. Suspend EU fiscal rules to allow EU individual countries to spend more on defense

EU leaders will debate their proposals and others at their summit on Thursday, even if Russian actives frozen in Europe could be used in funds for Ukraine.

But potential and very public European divisions are large. Many fed by the internal policy of the Member States.

Hungary, near the administration of Russia and Donald Trump, is a spoken in the wheel of almost all EU debate to help Ukraine. Brussels fears that Slovakia is in the same way.

Countries near Russia’s borders do not need to explain voters why defense spending must be high. The small Baltic nations exposed Estonia and Lithuania already spend more than 3% of GDP in defense. They want to raise that to 5% in the near future.

Meanwhile, the great European economies Italy and Spain, geographically, much further from Russia, do not spend the minimum requirement of 2% of the GDP in defense.

In Germany, France and the United Kingdom, according to a study by the Focaldata Research Group based in London, most voters want to maintain or reduce defense expense, preferring that their government concentrates on other voter priorities.

But NATO general secretary, Mark Rutte, warns Europeans to wake up and smell the elaboration of coffee in Washington and Moscow.

European nations need to spend more than 3% of GDP now to effectively highlight the continent of their deep dependence on the United States, he says.

If Donald Trump retires completely from Europe, no matter Ukraine, that would mean spending 4-6% of GDP, according to defense experts: a political, social and economic earthquake, European leaders expect not to have to face.