Difendere l’Europa senza gli Stati Uniti: prime stime di ciò che è necessario
https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us-first-estimates-what-needed
di Just-Sale-7015
Difendere l’Europa senza gli Stati Uniti: prime stime di ciò che è necessario
https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us-first-estimates-what-needed
di Just-Sale-7015
26 commenti
I’ve selected the paras with what I think are the main points:
>The current assumption of NATO military planners (RAND, 2024) is that in case of a Russian attack on a European NATO country, 100,000 US troops stationed in Europe would be rapidly augmented by up to 200,000 additional US troops, concentrated in US armoured units best suited for the East European battlefield.
>
>The combat power of 300,000 US troops is substantially greater than the equivalent number of European troops distributed over 29 national armies. US troops would come in large, cohesive, corps-sized units with a unified command and control tighter even than NATO joint command. Furthermore, US troops are backed by the full might of American strategic enablers, including strategic aviation and space assets, which European militaries lack.
>
>Taking the US Army III Corps as a reference point, credible European deterrence – for instance, to prevent a rapid Russian breakthrough in the Baltics – would require a minimum of 1,400 tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles and 700 artillery pieces (155mm howitzers and multiple rocket launchers). This is more combat power than currently exists in the French, German, Italian and British land forces combined. Providing these forces with sufficient munitions will be essential, beyond the barebones stockpiles currently available. For instance, one million 155mm shells would be the minimum for a large enough stockpile for 90 days of high-intensity combat.
You know you’ve pissed someone off when they start looking around for estimates 😂
There are two scenarios. First with US equipment, then what we have today would be more than enough. Though beefing everything up would be needed to deter a big step up in the aggression of hybrid warfare. Anders Puck Neilsen had a good video on this.
Without the US as seems likely with Trump:
Our capability gaps would be most pressingly in air defence systems like Patriot, a 5th gen fighter and attack aircraft like F-35, a much enhanced SEAD capability though in theory Typhoon ECM and SPEAR 3 will help fill these gaps. AWACs and attack helicopters with only the Tiger being indigenous, everyone else uses Apache. The UK would need a totally new nuclear deterrent.
Russia would have no chance against modern Europe even without US kit, but it would be costly and hard in places. So there would be far more leverage for the US.
Meteor and Typhoon Tranche 4 are seriously better than what Russia fields until we see if Su 57 actually gets built in numbers. The likely radar cross section is not much better than a Gen 4.5 like the latest Typhoon, Raphael and F-18.
Wed also need to massively step up our tankers. At sea we could spend more but Russia would really really struggle other than to protect its SSBNs.
On land Russia would need a huge step up in capabilities to manoeuvre against modern western equipment used by modern militaries. But in the Baltics there is very little strategic depth. You basically have to pay a heavy price up front to blunt them.
so more nukes for everyone then.
NUKELEAR WEAPONS FOR UKRAINE
We need an army in the Baltics and nuclear weapons for Germany and/or Poland.
>But what about the rules and treaties that won’t allow it?
Ask Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova how that worked out. The rule based world order is gone and we better get used to it.
To throw in some figures for correlation:
Yearly budget US is approx 900 billions for military – this includes all salaries and new weapon tech. This equates to 3% of their GDP in 2023
That budget covers for 1.3 million people active, approx 700k reserve and about the same number civilian jobs
[source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQoh9jdRZPM&t=419s)
Put this into perspective to the mentioned 250 billion short term and 300k people mentioned.
Edit: Sorry for the multiple ones, no idea how that happened.
A sense of urgency would be a good start.
Ok
And then double it
What is needed? Everything, due yesterday.
What needed is the people support, the big majority of the populace will not sacrifice the end of the month for the end of the world, that’s why there is no ecological revolution and there will be no big and strong European military through investment, an European army would be possible also if there is no national interest, because that would allow a merge of the forces and efficient spending of the already important resources, but that’s not the case, for example France interests lie only partially to the east, they also have heavy interests in Africa and in future in the Pacific, thanks to the French Polynesia and it enormous economic exclusion zone.
Don’t want to bring the drama but the current situation, with countries fighting each other for ideas, is exactly what’s wrong. And I think that the only solution would be to federalize the EU otherwise we can kiss the union goodbye before DT leaves office.
Having a federalized union would allow for a common defense strategy, army, acquisitions and so on.
And when 450M high-income people pull in the same direction, no one can ignore it.
Immeadiate federation
Banning us and Rus social media
Banning of anti eu parties
Nukes development
One common language
Stop to mass immigration and camps for incompatible migrants
thanks for sharing. it was a really good read.
Guys, this does mean us Europeans need to make some sacrifices. No more taking a month off work a year, or trying to scrounge every sick day we can. We need to step up and work, if we’re going to compete with China and the US.
Some of these numbers look off to me. They’re treating Russian refurbishment of tanks, artillery, APCs etc. as if they were new production instead of coming out of (considerably depleted) Soviet stocks. The Russian army now in Ukraine fires half the shells that it did in 2022 and has far fewer armoured vehicles (hence the donkeys, golf carts, motorcycles, and civilian cars seen on the battlefield).
This piece reads like it was written by some analysts pre-2022. It makes the exact same assumptions.
Time to fight back: 1)boycott US products (e.g.Tesla) 2) sell US government bonds 3) Phase out USD in all EU’s international trade, 4) re-arm Europe (e.g.nukes)
75 billion per annum for Ukraine some resources to kick them out the Donbass back to where they belong and then
10 billion per annum to protect the borders
Spend 5-7% GDP to ensure Putin can’t cash in in 6 months time on his war footing expenditure when he decided he wants something else
Id also blow the crimean bridge up that must take 5 decent missiles for it to be unusable for at least a year.
Whilst at it destroy all his oil and gas fields just for the fun factor
The best way to deal with Russia is to bankrupt them, he’s running out of money, Trump needs to man up and work for democracy rather than the current stupidity and people need to get through to him one way or another, No president in the world can play god.
Industries, factories, fuck environmentalists, and money to expand the size of military along with its equipment.
Someone will attack the white house I believe before Russia attacks any other European country,. Fascists are not welcome in a democracy
No first you need to know that russian do to conquer Moldova and all country in way to Kaliningrad
I hope that, aside from the military angle, European leaders are discussing how our democracies start protecting themselves from disinformation networks, bad actors election interference & destabilisation (looking at people like Steve Bannon), and educating people on media literacy. The battle of minds is just as important
> In 2024 alone, Russia produced and refurbished an estimated 1,550 tanks, 5,700 armoured vehicles and 450 artillery pieces of all types. It also deployed 1,800 long-range Lancet loitering munitions 3 . Compared to 2022, this represents a 220 percent increase in tank production, 150 percent in armoured vehicles and artillery, and 435 percent in long-range loitering munitions.
Produced and refurbished are very different things. If they are running low on stockpiles, how long will they be able to refurbish? If I recall correctly, refurbishment makes up like 90% of total production.
Essentially there are two conflicting narratives: Russia mainly refurbishes and is exhausting its Soviet inheritance, and Russia will attack the EU in 2028. How do you square that circle?
To be clear I’m not saying Russia is not a threat. They are. But I don’t get this part
We don’t even have our own house in order. At this point in time, many European countries are actively funding the Russian war machine by buying Russian LNG and oil. Among the biggest offenders are Belgium and Spain, who are, probably not entirely coincidental, also the biggest offenders when it comes to defense spending and contribution to Ukraine.
As an example: [Spain has spent more than 3 times as much on Russian LNG than on contributions to Ukraine since the beginning of the war.](https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/eu-countries-spent-close-eu7bn-russian-lng-2024) Effectively, Spain has done more for Russia than for Ukraine since the war started.
How the hell are we ever going to pose a credible threat to Russia, expand our military, if we cannot even get the most basic things right? I’m sorry, but the future for us is very bleak.
Key Takeaways:
1. Russia’s Growing Military Strength
• Despite losses in Ukraine, Russia has significantly increased its military size, production, and battlefield experience.
• Russian forces in Ukraine at the end of 2024 numbered 700,000, with production surging in tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, and drones.
• Russia could be ready to attack an EU country within 3–10 years.
2. Europe’s Immediate Priorities
• Continued support for Ukraine remains the best deterrence.
• Europe could financially replace US military aid to Ukraine with an additional 0.12% of GDP but faces challenges in replacing US strategic enablers.
3. The Challenge of a Post-War Russian Military Build-Up
• If Ukraine accepts an unfavorable peace deal, Russia will continue strengthening its military.
• Europe would need to quickly expand its military forces to deter Russian aggression, requiring around 50 new brigades (equivalent to 300,000 troops) and significant new equipment.
4. European Military Coordination Problem
• Unlike the US, Europe’s forces are spread across 29 national militaries with different structures and command chains.
• Europe must either increase its troop numbers beyond 300,000 to compensate for fragmentation or create a unified command structure to enhance efficiency.
5. Necessary Equipment and Production to deter Russia effectively, Europe needs at least:
• 1,400 tanks
• 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles
• 700 artillery pieces
• One million 155mm shells (for 90 days of high-intensity combat)
• 2,000 long-range drones annually
• Europe’s defense production must scale up significantly, with large, standardized procurement orders to drive down costs.
6. Financial Implications
• European defense spending must increase from 2% to 3.5% of GDP, requiring an additional €250 billion annually.
• This increase should be funded by debt in the short run.
• Germany would need to take the lead, raising its defense spending from €80 billion to €140 billion annually and contributing 100,000 troops.
300k under unified command, financed by all, stationed at the current bases after we kick them out. Don’t allow traitors strategic positions within Europe.