By Herbert Wulf
President Donald Trump shocked Europeans with the scandal in the White House. He humiliated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and withdrew US military support (temporarily). A protection racket without protection. Even before taking office, Trump had clearly told Europeans that the US military commitment in Europe would be drastically reduced. Although this did not come as a surprise, in this new geopolitical situation, most governments, military experts, and many mainstream media in Europe switched into crisis mode. Some warned alarmedly of a Russian attack on NATO and even suggested a possible time. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius had already mentioned in 2024 that Russia would be capable of attacking NATO in five to eight years.
In the first week of March, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk demanded: “Europe must join the arms race with Russia and win it.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stated that the mutual assistance clause in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty could apply to Ukraine even without NATO membership. Both French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Stamer convened hastily arranged summit meetings to discuss the changed security landscape, sending clear signals to Kyiv, Washington, and Moscow. Macron continues to envision European “strategic autonomy.” The governments of the Baltic states reemphasized the threat that Russia poses, calling for intensified defence efforts. The defence minister of the three countries plus Poland have now recommended withdrawing from the landmine treaty. The EU Commission presented a “ReArm Europe” program that is expected to include a financial package of 800 billion euros.
It seems the bellicose attitude is particularly pronounced in Germany. Although Germany was led by a caretaker government, a kind of grand coalition of three government and opposition parties asked the lame-duck parliament on its last day in session for a far-reaching amendment to the constitution. The cap on government debt, in place for 15 years, was partly abolished. From now on, there will be no more caps on the military budget. The EU program “ReArm Europe” will have similar consequences. Incurring debt for the armed forces made easy!
The arms industry is jubilant: Enormous sums have already been invested in arms procurement. Armin Pappberger, head of Germany’s largest arms manufacturer Rheinmetall spoke of an “era of rearmament” at the presentation of the company’s 2024 annual report. The company’s sales increased by 36 percent, and earnings by as much as 61 percent. German Defence Minister Pistorius also coined the term “Kriegstüchtigkeit” of society (war capability). In the past, the official term had always been “defence capability”– being able to fight in order not to have to fight. When the German government decided to send troops to Afghanistan in 2001 after fierce internal debates, the word “war” was taboo for long time. The term “war capability” represents a fundamental paradigm shift.
With new bellicose tones, Europe is embarking on a spending spree. The current debate revolves primarily around how much financial resources are needed to ensure Europe’s defence. Military, security, or diplomatic strategies or a potential future European security or even peace architecture are hardly the subject of the debate.
This is putting the cart before the horse. A well-thought-out security policy would have to proceed in reverse. The starting point should be a threat analysis. What are the challenges facing the armed forces? How many personnel are needed to counter which threats? What weapons must the armed forces be equipped with? What role can diplomacy play in de-escalation, a ceasefire, or even conflict resolution? Only by answering these questions can a coherent picture emerge of how much financial resources are required.
After Trump’s dictum, what should be the primary task today? To support Ukraine so that it does not lose the war against Russia? To strengthen Europe’s defence so that a possible Russian attack can be repelled? Should the task be to completely replace the dwindling US commitment in Europe, including a possible nuclear deterrent without the US, as envisioned by the French president?
No one can rule out the possibility of a Russian attack with certainty. President Vladimir Putin has not only attacked Ukraine in Russia’s neighbourhood. The nuclear sabre-rattling of the Russian leadership during the Ukraine war has also further weakened confidence in Russia’s policies. Nevertheless, in view of this historic turning point, it is advisable not to panic, but to base policy on established facts.
In the current debate, which is almost exclusively focused on financial necessities, hardly any questions are being asked about security policy concepts, the need for defence capabilities, or the technological revolutions in military strategies. Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine began with completely false assumptions on the part of Russia, as well as within Ukraine and NATO. The Kremlin assumed that the powerful, widely feared Russian army would capture Kyiv in a few days and install a pro-Russian regime. This was a complete miscalculation, as demonstrated by the high initial losses, the humiliating withdrawal of the invading army to eastern Ukraine, and the war of attrition that has now lasted for over three years.
But Ukrainian and many Western experts were also wrong in their assessment. They shared Moscow’s conclusion that Russia could win the war in a short time. Russia’s propaganda on its own military capabilities, as well as its actions in Syria and Ukraine since 2014, led them to greatly overestimate Russia’s capabilities. The Ukrainian army, which had been at war since 2014, was prepared to resist. It became apparent in the first days of the war that the Russian armed forces were ill-equipped for this invasion.
Even if Russia must be considered the greatest threat in Europe today, it is nevertheless necessary to carefully consider the risks posed by Russia’s aggressive policies. It is necessary to respond adequately and not primarily resort to a panic-induced diversion of funds. Is it realistic to assume a Russian attack on NATO noting their difficulties in achieving its goals in Ukraine? The same Western experts who predicted Russia’s quick victory against Ukraine are now emphasizing Russia’s military potential to attack NATO.
The New York Times referred to Roman Kostenko, chairman of the defence and intelligence committee in Ukraine’s Parliament, who said: “Drones, not the big, heavy artillery that the war was once known for, inflict about 70 percent of all Russian and Ukrainian casualties.” In the same article, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation, Adm. Pierre Vandier of France, stated: “The war is a mix of World War I and World War III — what could be a future war.” Electronic warfare would play a major role in future wars. What consequences do these new realities have for current and future arms procurement in Europe? Will thousands upon thousands of expensive major weapons systems become obsolete because they can be disabled with conventional, inexpensive drones? Do these findings play a role in the current debate?
The statement that Europeans have invested too little in their defence in recent decades is incorrect. European NATO countries spent $476 billion on their armed forces in 2024. For the last decade, European NATO spending (excluding the USA) amounted to over $3 trillion, many times more than Russia invested into its armed forces. Thus, the problem cannot be lack of funding. It is rather typical European parochial politics that has led to the dire situation of many European armed forces. Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell summed it up back in 2022: “If each Member State increases its defence spending by investing on its own, the result will be a waste of money, multiplying existing weaknesses and unnecessary overlaps.” But this is exactly what is still happening. Thus, before continuing this bellicose spending spree and to continue wasting scarce financial resources, a sober analysis of past mistakes should be carried out.
Source:https://toda.org/global-outlook/2025/europes-new-bellicism-rearmament-in-a-frenzy.html
