NATO in Europe consists of most of the EU plus UK, Norway and a couple of smaller countries (let us call them EU+). They of course have to look for their security, and one element of that is an adequate military defence capacity. However, security is much broader than that. To be secure, a country needs to have a stable economy with diversified supply chains, a stable government, reasonably peaceful social relations and a certain level of national unity. It also has to have an efficient diplomacy and the ability to reach an understanding with its neighbours, guaranteeing mutual security. On the latter, EU+ is failing miserably (we shall return to that later).
Let us start with the military defence capacity, as this is what the political discussion is about right now.
What is an adequate defence capacity? Lately, this has been boiled down to military expenditure, often expressed as a percentage of GDP. This is of course not a good way of measuring it, as it should be based on an assessment of the threats, the defence needs derived from this assessment, and an analysis of the ways these can be addressed, not just look at how much money is thrown at it. But let us start with the money anyway.
The identified threat is a Russian invasion (more on that later). So let us first look at how the relative (non-nuclear) military strength looks, starting with NATO versus Russia.
In 2024, the total population of the NATO countries was 972 million, against Russia’s 145 million (almost 7 times bigger) and their GDP was USD 53,976 billion, against Russia’s 2,098 billion (25 times bigger). According to NATO, the total NATO defence budget was USD 1,474 billion in 2024, while that of Russia was 146 billion, that is 10 times Russia’s. The active military personnel of NATO was 3.4 million against Russia’s 1.3 million, that is 2.6 times more. It looks like the the elephant is feeling threatened by the mouse.
Map of US-bases in Europe, compiled by CSIS based on open sources. Trump has suddenly created doubts about the willingness of the US to intervene militarily if EU goes to war with Russia. This has caused panic in the EU.
But if the US is no longer guaranteeing EU+ militarily, then maybe this comparison isn’t that relevant any more? So let us focus on EU+ alone, taking out US, Canada and Turkey and look at the numbers again.
In 2024, EU+ had a population of 524 million, that is more than 3 times Russia’s, and its GDP was USD 21,834 billion, that is ten times Russia’s. EU+ had a defence budget of USD 453 billion, that is 3 times that of Russia. The EU+ active military personnel was 1.56 million, i.e. 20% more than Russia. Looks to me as a suicide for Russia if it tried to assault the EU+, even supposing that the US will not come to the rescue of its European allies.
A recent article in Politico argues (rightly) that this comparison is misleading, as we should be looking at purchasing power, not on current US dollars. The Russian rouble is heavily undervalued and if we correct for that, the picture changes. You have probably seen the many meaningless references to Russia having an economy the size of Italy (or Texas). This is due to this undervaluation of the rouble. IMF and the World Bank suggest to correct this by calculating what they call PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). According to this, one USD should be converted not to 89 roubles, which is the present market value, but rather to around 29 roubles. This means that the Russian figures in US dollars should be multiplied with 3.05 to give a more correct picture. Based on this, Politico reaches the conclusion that Russia is outspending EU+, but what is missing in their analysis is that the EU+ figures should be corrected upwards too (with around 40%) as the US dollar is overvalued compared to the Euro (and other EU currencies). When we correct for this, Russia’s defence spending in 2024 was rather USD 445 billion, while that of EU+ was USD 635 billion. So EU+ is still outspending Russia with around 40%.
Military spending in EU+ was in 2024 on average 2% of GDP, but several countries already now have higher spending. Poland spent 4% of GDP in 2024, and Denmark has announced that it will reach 3% of GDP this year. If EU+ followed Trump’s suggestion of 5% of GDP, they would spend more on the military than the US, presently the world’s biggest spender. And it is a lot of money. In 2024 the biggest spenders per capita in EU+ were Norway (USD 1,754), Denmark (USD 1,479), Sweden (USD 1,185) and UK (USD 1,097).
In conclusion, the claim about the urgent need for increasing spending is not supported by facts. Russia’s is not outspending the EU, it is the other way around. It is probably true that the EU+ could spend its money more wisely, for example by reducing military bureaucracy and refusing to buy over-engineered and over-priced American hardware, but that is another story.
Even so, Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, has called on Europe to ‘join and win the arms race with Russia’. The answer from Russian Government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was that ‘They won’t win against us, because we won’t engage with them. We will focus on our own matters and secure our own interests". So if we believe Donald Tusk, the European arms race has already started.
George F. Kennan, a US career Foreign Service Officer, formulated the policy of “containment,” the basic US strategy for fighting the cold war (1947–1989) with the Soviet Union. He has said that there is ‘nothing in nature more egocentrical than the embattled democracy’. And that was not meant as a commendation. Photo from Library of Congress.
It may be worth remembering the words of late George Kennan, the architect of the US cold war with the Soviet Union, which very well describe the political atmosphere in the EU just now: ‘There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentrical than the embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own war propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision of everything else. Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side, on the other hand, is the center of all virtue. The contest comes to be viewed as having a final, apocalyptic quality. If we lose, all is lost; life will no longer be worth living; there will be nothing to be salvaged. If we win, then everything will be possible; all problems will become soluble; the one great source of evil — our enemy — will have been crushed; the forces of good will then sweep forward unimpeded; all worthy aspirations will be satisfied.’
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
The other main issue it the threat assessment. As is often the case in the prelude to war, real or imagined threats are blown out of proportion to support a campaign for rearming and mobilisation. Just remember the prelude to the Iraq war. It is difficult to understand which threat assessment the EU+ leaders are basing their war campaign on, making statements as ‘Who can believe that this Russia of today will stop at Ukraine?’ (Macron), ‘Russia could carry out an attack against NATO by the end of the decade (German Federal Intelligence Service President Bruno Kahl), ‘Britain is under a greater threat of attack than ever since the cold war’ (Keir Starmer), ‘Within two years, Russia could pose a credible threat to one or several Nato countries’ (Danish Defence Minister), etc.
The first question to be asked is: why would Russia assault EU+? Most military analysts agree that Russia would suffer a devastating defeat (for example the Pentagon related Rand Corporation), and Russia knows that. Even if it could win a conventional war with EU+ (it can’t), what would it gain from it? Occupy countries with a population that is three times bigger to do what? This is insane, and despite what we are told, the people in Moscow are not madmen. For a more serious and balanced analysis, I recommend this study from the Quincy Institute.
European colonisation was justified as a war of civilization against barbarism. Not much has changed since. Image: Artist: Udo Keppler. Source: Library of Congress/MIT Visualising Cultures.
Most politicians are no fools, and if it is clear that there is no immediate threat to EU+, what may be the reason for talking up this threat? It obviously is to get popular backing for increased military spending and rearmament, but what is the goal of this new arms race? When the EU+ leaders talk with so much confidence that war is coming and that they are rearming for this war, may it be that they want the Ukraine conflict to go on for three to four years more and then, when they have rearmed, intervene militarily against Russia in Ukraine, even if this means war with Russia?
Another possible (and less catastrophic) explanation is a desire to preserve Europe’s traditional role as a world power. The looming defeat for NATO in Ukraine implies a big loss of international prestige and influence, and for old colonial empires (particularly UK and France) this hurts. Add to this that the unconditional support for the Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank, while speaking about ‘rule based order’ and human rights, is considered hypocritical by many in the Global South. So EU+ is being downsized, both morally, economically and militarily. Not funny.
And then to diplomacy, peaceful coexistence and common security. Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, and particularly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO countries (with a few exceptions) have cut off all communication channels with Russia. Insults are the common way of communication: ‘Putin is the new Hitler’ (Hilary Clinton), ‘Putin is a murderous madman’ (Biden), ‘Putin is a crazy son of a b…..’ (Biden again), and so on. We are all free to think and say that, but diplomacy implies that politicians should treat their colleagues in other countries with a minimum of respect, even if they dislike or even hate them. If not, diplomacy and dialogue break down, and there is only for-ever wars left. Elementary, my dear Watson. But not so for the present breed of EU+ politicians, right and left.
Strengthening of military defence alone does not provide a country security. Dialogue with neighbours, security agreements, mutual arms reduction, confidence building measures, and so on are necessary parts of security. Rearming that is not accompanied by diplomacy and dialogue with the perceived enemies is the direct road to war.
It seems that the present political leaders of the EU+ countries have become a security risk for their own people.
