Can Europe deter Russia without US military?

Donald Trump seems to have more confidence in the capabilities of Britain’s armed forces more than some of his generals – or, in this regard, many retired military copper in Britain.

When asked in his press conference with the UK Prime Minister about the US security guarantees of Ukraine, Trump said: “The British have great soldiers, an incredible army and they can take care of themselves.”

However, the US President left the question suspended in the air about whether the British army could face Russia.

In public places, senior military officers rush to praise the professionalism of the armed forces in Britain. But separately, they often strongly criticize modern cuts to their size, especially for the British army, which now owns more than 70,000 regular soldiers.

“Very small” is what an elderly person in the United States said, especially on a visit to the United Kingdom.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Russian military spending is now higher than the total defensive spending in Europe, in terms of purchase of equal strength. It increases by 41 % and is now the equivalent of 6.7 % of GDP. On the other hand, the United Kingdom will spend 2.5 % by 2027.

President Trump’s comments emphasize the fact that he is not considering putting American forces on the ground in Ukraine to any ceasefire. Any American presence will be economical, to exploit mining interests.

He suggests that in itself it may be a deterrent to Russia attacking again. But even his administration believes that there should be some difficult force – that others provide. It will be up to European countries to do so. The question is not only if Europe has the will: Does it also have numbers?

The short answer is no. For this reason, Sir Kerr Starmer was pressing additional American security guarantees from the world’s most powerful army.

Britain is not alone in cutting its armed forces in response to the end of the Cold War. This trend is slowly reversed, with more countries increasing in defensive spending.

But Europe, on its own, will not be able to provide a power of 100 to 200,000 international soldiers, which Ukrainian President Folodimir Zelinski suggests that there to be a need to deter Russia from the attack again.

Instead, Western officials said they were considering a force of up to 30,000 soldiers. European aircraft and warships will help monitor the airspace in Ukraine and ship the corridors.

This force will focus on providing “reassurance” in the main sites – Ukraine cities, ports and nuclear power plants. It will not be placed anywhere near the current front lines in eastern Ukraine. European aircraft and warships will also deny the air spaces in Ukraine and shipping corridors.

But these Western officials themselves admit that this will not be sufficient, and therefore the calls to the American “Backstop” – “to have confidence that the forces will be stabbed by Russia” and “the Prime Minister has given confidence that he can spread British forces safely.”

Officials believe, at least, the United States can provide supervision of any European forces “command and control” and American fighter jets ready to respond from its air bases in Poland and Romania. Europe cannot coincide with American monitoring capabilities or the possibility of intelligence.

It can also agree to continue to provide Ukraine with weapons.

While Europe recently exceeded the United States in terms of the percentage of Western weapons provided to Ukraine, one of the Western sources said that the United States had provided “cream” – such as long -range missiles and air defense systems.

European countries also do not have the empowerment factors needed to conduct large -scale military operations on their own. The supply of Western weapons to Ukraine depends on American logistics.

The NATO bombing campaign on Libya in 2011 also highlighted the shortcomings – where European countries are supposed to take the initiative, but still depend on American support. The allies relied on us the tankers to refuel and target us.

But it seems that Mr. Kerr Starmer has left Washington without any guarantees for American military support. Speaking to the BBC this morning, the UK Minister of Health Wes Streeting suggested that re -abolition of Donald Trump to Article 5 of NATO – where the attack on one ally will be interpreted as an attack on everyone – may be sufficient.

But the US Defense Secretary, Beit Higseth, previously stated that any international forces sent to Ukraine will not be the NATO force or its treaty. Nowadays, there is no security guarantee similar to NATO.

The power of the will of Europe is tested. The Prime Minister, who holds a meeting of leaders this week, will discover soon if the warm words Donald Trump are sufficient to persuade others to join the UK in placing shoes on the ground.

France is the only main European power that appears to be ready to do the same. Some northern European countries – Denmark, Sweden and the Baltic countries – are ready to consider commitment, but they want once again in US security guarantees. Spain, Italy and Germany are opposed so far.

Sir Kerr may still believe that there is room for negotiation, and that the United States may still be ready to support a European force. But for Donald Trump’s question – will Britain be able to confront the Russian army? Despite the weakening of the Russian forces, the answer is not.