President Biden expressed strong condemnation of the recent Russian assault on Ukraine, referring to the series of missile and drone strikes as “outrageous.”
Scenery of U.S. defense policy is shifting, especially as the Financial Times reports that President-elect Trump is urging NATO countries to allocate 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) annually toward defense if they expect continued support from the U.S.
RelatedPosts
This is a monumental demand. As of June 2024, eight out of 32 NATO members have yet to meet the established 2 percent GDP benchmark for defense spending. Currently, only Poland exceeds a 4 percent commitment.
While this level of spending might suffice during peacetime, the imminent threat posed by Russia and its allies cannot be ignored. Europe is already entrenched in a hybrid conflict with Russia that encompasses espionage, sabotage, cyberattacks, assassinations, and widespread misinformation.
The challenges ahead are substantial. The Kremlin is actively preparing for an even more extensive conventional war against Europe.
Andrei Belousov, the Russian defense chief, emphasized the urgency of readiness when he declared earlier this month that Russia must prepare for a potential direct “military conflict with NATO within the next decade.”
In pursuit of this goal and to secure victory in Ukraine, Moscow announced in September its intention to increase defense expenditures by 25 percent in 2025, reaching 6.3 percent of its GDP. This figure surpasses U.S. defense spending by a factor of 1.5 in terms of GDP percentage and is three times greater than NATO’s current median.
While Russia gears up for conflict, many NATO nations remain oblivious to the threats that loom ahead. Some, like Slovakia and Hungary, are prioritizing economic stability over long-term national security interests.
Canada, an essential partner in NORAD, currently allocates only 1.4 percent of its GDP to defense. Belgium, which hosts NATO’s headquarters, falls even shorter, with just 1.1 percent.
As a result, Europe finds itself in a precarious situation. This vulnerability is heightened if Russia decides to weaponize civilian infrastructure in a future confrontation with NATO, deliberately targeting hospitals, energy systems, schools, and culturally important sites as it has in Ukraine.
Recent leaked NATO assessments from last May are troubling. They indicate that NATO member-states are currently capable of providing less than 5 percent of the air defense resources necessary to safeguard members in central and eastern Europe against a full-scale attack.
The Russian military has demonstrated particular effectiveness in targeting Ukrainian urban areas and energy infrastructure through missiles and drones. The risk of a future European war is very tangible.
Consequently, 95 percent of Europe currently represents a target-rich environment. Therefore, NATO’s focus cannot solely be on GDP figures. The alliance must prioritize military capabilities, considering not only present requirements but also insights gained from the conflict in Ukraine.
Insights gained from Israel’s military engagements with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran should be taken into account as well, particularly regarding electronic warfare due to the increasing use of drones for targeting troops, vehicles, and artillery, along with the need to establish a comprehensive air defense system akin to the Iron Dome.
Air defense is just the beginning. Production of artillery and mortar shells is alarmingly inadequate. By 2025, Ukraine projects that Russia will be capable of manufacturing 30 percent more artillery shells than the combined total of all European Union member states.
The absence of precision long-range weaponry, including the American ATACMS, British Storm Shadow, French SCALP, and German Taurus missiles, has hindered Ukraine’s ability to conclude the war, relegating them largely to defensive tactics against Russian attacks reminiscent of World War I.
A successful NATO strategy in any future conflict necessitates the ability to disrupt Russian supply lines and engage in deeper combat operations to create opportunities for victory in closer engagements. Ukraine has repeatedly faced heavy casualties in its attempts to adapt to this reality along the 700-mile front line.
The toll in human life due to Russian attrition warfare has been staggering. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who will serve as Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine and Russia starting January 20, estimates that between 350,000 and 400,000 Russian troops have perished, alongside 150,000 Ukrainian soldiers.
When applying traditional casualty ratios of three or four wounded for every fatality, it becomes evident that NATO cannot sustain such losses in future conflicts involving the Kremlin’s strategy of mass attrition warfare.
Trump’s call for an immediate 5 percent increase in defense spending appears to be a much more economical solution. Strategically, it offers a more prudent path for NATO’s European member states concerning national security.
Training also plays a crucial role. The efficacy of NATO’s ground defense relies on swift response capabilities, which necessitates the mobilization and reinforcement of forward-deployed NATO battlegroups located in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.
This requires comprehensive soldier training, starting at the national level and culminating in NATO Joint/Combined exercises. Investing 5 percent now in training and development is essential for safeguarding lives should war with Russia erupt in the next decade.
Unlike NATO, Russian President Vladimir Putin is not making equivalent investments in his military, which partly explains the high casualty rates among his forces in Ukraine.
The idea that anyone can be equipped and trained as a soldier in just two weeks is unrealistic. Yet, this is precisely what Putin attempts. Conversely, NATO dedicates years to preparing its personnel for combat.
NATO must also strategize for potential future kinetic conflicts in innovative ways. Artificial intelligence is already changing the dynamics on battlefields like Ukraine, enhancing intelligence collection and analysis.
Ukraine’s military has gathered over 2 million hours of battlefield footage, utilizing it to rapidly identify targets by scanning images at a speed far surpassing human capabilities. By overlaying images, they can detect changes and flag potential threats for engagement.
None of these challenges will be straightforward. Europe, which has historically prioritized social programs, is confronted with a stark choice: national security or maintaining an ideal social welfare state.
The political will to effect change will be difficult to muster. Trump has issued a clear challenge: invest now by committing to 5 percent of GDP, or risk diminishing future U.S. support for NATO.
Europe faced a similar choice in the 1930s, leading to the onset of World War II. Today, Putin’s intentions are unmistakable. Last Friday, he bluntly stated that the world has declared war on Russia, declaring that in response, “the Russian world has declared war.”
The pressing question remains: will Europe heed Trump’s advice and make the necessary 5 percent GDP investment, or will it fall prey to Putin’s expectations that they will not?
