Replacing US military support in Europe would cost $1T
Politico EU (archive.ph)
By Giovanna Coi
2025-05-15 12:38:20GMT
Europe could survive without United States military support — but it would take a quarter century to replace the Americans and cost as much as $1 trillion, according to a new report.
A study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies published Thursday found that a hypothetical U.S. withdrawal from Europe would leave the continent’s NATO members vulnerable to a Russian threat and faced with “stark choices” on how to fill the immense gaps.
The costs of like-for-like replacement of U.S. equipment and personnel would add up to approximately $1 trillion over 25 years, the study found. That includes one-off procurement costs ranging from $226 billion to $344 billion — depending on the quality of the equipment purchased — and additional expenses associated with military maintenance, personnel and support.
The most expensive line item on the shopping list would be 400 tactical combat aircraft, followed by 20 destroyers and 24 long-range surface-to-air missiles.
The IISS also estimated that in the event of a large-scale military operation to counter a Russian attack, the cost to replace U.S. personnel (estimated at 128,000 troops) would exceed $12 billion.
The assessment does not include other glaring gaps, the cost of which is harder to quantify. These include command and control, coordination, space, intelligence and surveillance, as well as the cost of nuclear weapons.
Europeans would also need to fill certain top jobs, like the position of supreme allied commander in Europe — NATO’s commander on the continent and its second-highest-ranking military position. With the U.S. out of the picture, they would also have to step up diplomatic coordination efforts.
Easier said than done
Filling the gap left by the U.S. in Europe would require a mix of time, long-term political commitment and more ambitious investment.
But even with unlimited political goodwill and the cash to match it, European industry would in the short term lack the capability to meet increased demand, according to the IISS. Arms manufacturers would be faced with supply chain bottlenecks, a shortage of skilled workers, and financing and regulatory constraints.
Most likely, the “buy European” dream touted by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would not materialize for a while. Even if procurement picks up in the land sector, other sectors like naval and aerospace have seen very little investment. In some areas like rocket artillery or low-observable fighter aircraft, buying local is simply not an option.
Still, despite Europe’s continued dependency on U.S. military suppliers, there are signs of progress.
The institute’s analysis of selected procurement efforts tendered between February 2022 and September 2024 found that 52 percent of their value was awarded to European suppliers, compared to 34 percent for the United States. The “buy European” trend is likely to gain traction, according to the authors of the report.
Europe is also spending more than before to defend itself.
In the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, several NATO countries stepped up their efforts to meet or exceed the alliance’s goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House was also an unexpected boon to proponents of European defense. The president’s demands that European allies contribute more to NATO — and his suggestion that the U.S. might abandon its defense commitments to the continent — have cast doubt on America’s reliability as an ally. That makes the idea of “genuinely European defense,” as championed by French President Emmanuel Macron, more appealing.
But cash-strapped governments only have so much wiggle room to spend more on defense while keeping their national debts under control.
Moreover, tensions in countries like Spain and Italy, which are struggling with squeezed public finances, suggest public opposition to greater military spending could also be an obstacle if Europe is left on its own.
---
https://www.iiss.org/research-paper...ut--the-united-states-costs-and-consequences/ (archive.ph)
https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/m...ited-states_costs-and-consequences_052025.pdf (archive.org)
https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/m...ited-states_costs-and-consequences_052025.pdf (archive.org)
Politico EU (archive.ph)
By Giovanna Coi
2025-05-15 12:38:20GMT
Europe could survive without United States military support — but it would take a quarter century to replace the Americans and cost as much as $1 trillion, according to a new report.
A study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies published Thursday found that a hypothetical U.S. withdrawal from Europe would leave the continent’s NATO members vulnerable to a Russian threat and faced with “stark choices” on how to fill the immense gaps.
The costs of like-for-like replacement of U.S. equipment and personnel would add up to approximately $1 trillion over 25 years, the study found. That includes one-off procurement costs ranging from $226 billion to $344 billion — depending on the quality of the equipment purchased — and additional expenses associated with military maintenance, personnel and support.
The most expensive line item on the shopping list would be 400 tactical combat aircraft, followed by 20 destroyers and 24 long-range surface-to-air missiles.
The IISS also estimated that in the event of a large-scale military operation to counter a Russian attack, the cost to replace U.S. personnel (estimated at 128,000 troops) would exceed $12 billion.
The assessment does not include other glaring gaps, the cost of which is harder to quantify. These include command and control, coordination, space, intelligence and surveillance, as well as the cost of nuclear weapons.
Europeans would also need to fill certain top jobs, like the position of supreme allied commander in Europe — NATO’s commander on the continent and its second-highest-ranking military position. With the U.S. out of the picture, they would also have to step up diplomatic coordination efforts.
Easier said than done
Filling the gap left by the U.S. in Europe would require a mix of time, long-term political commitment and more ambitious investment.
But even with unlimited political goodwill and the cash to match it, European industry would in the short term lack the capability to meet increased demand, according to the IISS. Arms manufacturers would be faced with supply chain bottlenecks, a shortage of skilled workers, and financing and regulatory constraints.
Most likely, the “buy European” dream touted by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would not materialize for a while. Even if procurement picks up in the land sector, other sectors like naval and aerospace have seen very little investment. In some areas like rocket artillery or low-observable fighter aircraft, buying local is simply not an option.
Still, despite Europe’s continued dependency on U.S. military suppliers, there are signs of progress.
The institute’s analysis of selected procurement efforts tendered between February 2022 and September 2024 found that 52 percent of their value was awarded to European suppliers, compared to 34 percent for the United States. The “buy European” trend is likely to gain traction, according to the authors of the report.
Europe is also spending more than before to defend itself.
In the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, several NATO countries stepped up their efforts to meet or exceed the alliance’s goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House was also an unexpected boon to proponents of European defense. The president’s demands that European allies contribute more to NATO — and his suggestion that the U.S. might abandon its defense commitments to the continent — have cast doubt on America’s reliability as an ally. That makes the idea of “genuinely European defense,” as championed by French President Emmanuel Macron, more appealing.
But cash-strapped governments only have so much wiggle room to spend more on defense while keeping their national debts under control.
Moreover, tensions in countries like Spain and Italy, which are struggling with squeezed public finances, suggest public opposition to greater military spending could also be an obstacle if Europe is left on its own.
---
https://www.iiss.org/research-paper...ut--the-united-states-costs-and-consequences/ (archive.ph)
https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/m...ited-states_costs-and-consequences_052025.pdf (archive.org)
https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/m...ited-states_costs-and-consequences_052025.pdf (archive.org)
