Can Europe scare Russia without a US military?

Donald Trump seems to have more confidence in the capabilities of the British armed forces than some of his own generals – or, which is retired for many of the retired military brass in Great Britain.

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

However, the US President left the question in the air whether the British military could take over against Russia.

In public, high -ranking US military officers quickly praise the professionalism of the British armed forces. But privately they are often very critical of the recent cuts in their size, especially for the British army, which now has a little more than 70,000 regular troops.

“Too small” is what a very high -ranking US general said in a private briefing about a visit to the UK.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Russia’s military issues in relation to the purchase of parity power are now higher than the total editions of Europe. It is increased by 41% and now corresponds to 6.7% of GDP. In contrast, Great Britain will only issue 2.5% by 2027.

President Trump’s comments underline reality that he does not think about bringing American troops in Ukraine on site to monitor an armistice. Each US presence will be economical to use mining interests.

He suggests that this could be a deterrent for Russia that attacks again. But his administration also believes that there must also be hard power – provided by others. It is up to European nations to do this. The question is not only whether Europe has the will: does it also have the numbers?

The short answer is no. That is why Sir Keir Starrer from the most powerful military in the world pushed to additional US security guarantees.

Great Britain is not alone if he cuts his armed forces in response to the end of the Cold War. This trend in Europe is slowly reversed, with more nations increasing defense spending.

But Europe alone would not be able to provide a force of 100 to 200,000 international troops that the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky suggests to prevent Russia from being attacked again.

Instead, western officials said they think of a force of up to 30,000 soldiers. European jets and warships would help to monitor airspace and shipping traces of Ukraine.

This force would focus on delivering “calming” at important locations – the cities, ports and nuclear power plants of Ukraine. They would not be placed near the current front lines in eastern Ukraine. European fighter planes and warships would also monitor airspace and shipping traces of Ukraine.

But the same western officials recognize that this would not be enough, hence the demands for a “backstop” of US – “the trust that all the forces of Russia are not questioned” and “to give the prime minister the trust that he can use British armed forces safely”.

Officials believe that the United States at least European armed forces could be commissioned by a “command and control element” and the US fighter planes to react from its airbases in Poland and Romania. Europe cannot keep up with American room -based surveillance or intelligent skills.

It could also agree to continue to supply Ukraine with weapons.

While Europe recently overtaken the United States in relation to the proportion of western weapons that were delivered to Ukraine, a western source said that the USA had made “the cream” – such as long -range missiles and air defense systems.

In the European nations, the necessary enables the necessary to carry out large military operations alone. The supply of western weapons to Ukraine was dependent on the US logistics.

NATO’s bombing campaign via Libya in 2011 also emphasized defects in 2011 – although the European nations allegedly took the lead, but still dependent on the support of the United States. Allies were based on US tankers and the targeting of US tankers.

But Sir Keir Starrer seems to have left Washington without guaranteeing the military support of the United States. In conversation with the BBC this morning, British health secretary Wes Streeting suggested that Donald Trump’s re -liabilities against NATO articles 5 – in which an attack on an ally as an attack on everyone – could be sufficient.

But the US defense minister Pete Hegseth has previously stated that international troops that were sent to Ukraine do not cover a NATO troop nor by their contract. There is currently no such security guarantee in NATO style.

The willpower of Europe is tested. The prime minister, who convened a meeting of managers this weekend, will soon find out whether Donald Trump warm words will be sufficient to convince others to join the Great Britain to put boots on site.

France is the only other great European power that seems to be ready so far to do the same. Some Northern European nations – Denmark, Sweden and the Baltic States – are ready to take into account a commitment, but would again like the security guarantees of the USA. Spain, Italy and Germany are spoken so far.

Sir Keir could still believe that there is room for negotiations so that the United States is still ready to support a European force. But to Donald Trump’s question – would Britain be able to take over the Russia’s military? Although the Russian armed forces were weakened, the answer is no.