On March 6, French President Emmanuel Macron stood before cameras. It was a week after the nightmare meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US President Donald Trump. "Our peace and security are in danger, we are entering a new era," the French president addressed his concerned citizens. "I want to believe that the US will stand by our side, but we must be prepared for the possibility that this may not be the case." At the climax of the somber speech, Macron raised the possibility that France would commit to protecting European nations with its nuclear weapons.
Macron delivered his speech just one day after the European Union announced a plan worth 800 billion euros for military buildup. "European security is deteriorating, and so many of our illusions are shattering," said President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.
The illusions von der Leyen spoke about are the assumptions that have underpinned the world order since World War II – chief among them the assumption that the US guarantees the security of the continent and Western democracies. This assumption has allowed them for years to divert budgets toward goals such as welfare, education, culture, and transportation. Now, while its citizens are primarily concerned about the migration crisis and slowing economy, Europe is awakening in panic to a nightmare of Russian tanks charging westward accompanied by the buzz of Iranian attack drones.
Europe is rearming – this isn't wordplay on weapons reform in Israel, but simply the name of the EU's military procurement program: ReArm Europe. European security architecture relies heavily on the American presence, which provides deterrence, mainly against Russia, through "boots on the ground" and American nuclear weapons stationed in the region – and there is a widespread feeling on the continent, based on facts, that the US is packing up its equipment.
According to Pentagon data, about 100,000 American soldiers are stationed in Europe. The US also stores about 100 nuclear bombs on the continent. American media reported that the administration is considering withdrawing 20,000 soldiers deployed by the Biden administration after the Russian invasion.
"The time for illusions is over"
Both in the European Union and certainly in Moscow, they know that years will pass before the EU succeeds in establishing capabilities to replace American protection. But the arms race has begun, with two goals: First – to continue aid to Ukraine and prepare for deploying forces in the country as part of a peace settlement. Second – a "European army" that can defend the continent without the US.
"The time for illusions is over," said President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. "Europe is called to take responsibility for its own defense, not in the future but today. We have begun to mobilize Europe's enormous resources. Difficult choices await us."
Europe is focusing on two dates: March 20, when the European Council will discuss the armament plan, and late June at the NATO summit in The Hague, which President Donald Trump will attend. Unlike during his previous term, Europeans are now prepared to allocate enormous sums for security. If previously EU countries were committed to investing 2% of GDP in security, today they're talking about more than 3%. Many countries will need to implement across-the-board cuts to raise these amounts.
There are two schools of thought in Europe for analyzing Trump's moves: The first argues for advancing independent capabilities in a limited way, assuming Trump will leave office in 2029. The second school, currently dominant, focuses on building significant military power in Europe. Despite this, Europe hopes Trump won't abandon military assistance, as Dr. Eyal Robinson, an international relations expert from Ariel University, explains: "I don't think the US will separate from NATO, because the US has international interests derived from its affiliation with the military alliance."
The main concern is a scenario where Russian President Vladimir Putin invades a NATO member country, and the question of whether the Trump administration would honor Article 5, which mandates mutual defense. According to Robinson, "The answer is that there's a big question that in the past had a clear answer, and now it doesn't."
Battle for European primacy
The Baltic states and Poland didn't wait for warnings. As countries that were behind the Iron Curtain, they're aware of the danger from the east. Poland, for example, leads NATO's table of security expenditures relative to national product, Estonia is next, and the US is only third. Last week, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that his country must strive to acquire "the most advanced modern capabilities, including those related to nuclear weapons and non-conventional weapons." In the same speech, he also said his country would develop a program to train every man in the country for military service and increase the army to half a million soldiers.
Tusk also responded positively to the French proposal to provide a nuclear protection umbrella for the continent. This attests to how the current situation threatens Europe and changes not only the order of priorities, but also the hierarchy among nations. Macron spoke in his address about France's "special status" due to the country possessing "the most effective army in Europe" and nuclear weapons.
Dr. Emmanuel Navon, CEO of "ELNET Israel" and lecturer in international relations at Tel Aviv University, explains that "There has always been competition between Germany and France for European leadership, but France cannot cope with German economic power. Now, when France is the only member of the European Union with nuclear weapons, this gives it an important and central role." He adds that "When Macron talks about 'European autonomy,' his intention is that Europeans will buy French military equipment, and this will come mainly from German money" – something that could "revive the French economy."
Despite this competition, the new situation has brought the countries closer, and Germany under future Chancellor Friedrich Merz intends to significantly strengthen militarily. Just last week, Merz managed to form a coalition supporting the increase of the legal debt limit in Germany to lead a 900 billion euro investment program – with 400 billion of it for military buildup. "In light of the threats to freedom and peace on our continent, the rule for our defense must now be 'whatever it takes,'" Merz explained the move.
Cultural change
But money and ammunition alone will not solve Europe's security problems. It needs soldiers. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) – European armies, including Britain, have almost 1.5 million soldiers, but would struggle to deploy them effectively without American command and logistics. European armies are often described as "bonsai" armies, which like Japanese miniature trees only look like a real army but actually hold only "samples" of real military capabilities.
On the way to developing real military capabilities, countries like Germany will need to deal with the demons of their military past. Others will need to shake off cultural perceptions that recoil from anything that smells of militarism. "To deal with the Russian danger seriously, Europe will need not only to spend a lot of money, but also to bring back mandatory service and reserves, and to renormalize the importance of the military among a society that hasn't experienced wars. They are still far from that," explains Dr. Navon.
"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime," warned British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on the eve of Britain's entry into World War I. This remark, first published in his memoirs in 1925, now echoes in the interpretation of the current turning point on the continent.
