Trump pressures Europe to fix its own defences

But the issue is thorny: such joint fundraising might impede the efforts of member countries to meet the individual demands that the NATO alliance is already making of them in terms of raising military budgets. Of the 27 EU countries due to meet in the closed-door session on Monday, 23 are NATO members.

NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, has already set capability targets for the first time since the Cold War. The American general has given NATO-member countries specific requirements for equipment and force levels, as well as instructions on how to respond in case of a Russian invasion.

There is consensus among officials and analysts that Europe lacks crucial elements of defence like integrated air and missile defence, long-range precision artillery and missiles, satellites, and air-to-air refuelling tankers that only the US currently provides. Replacing those systems would take Europe at least five or perhaps 10 years, the analysts say.

European nations also want to reduce duplication. Ukraine, for example, has been sent at least 17 different kinds of howitzers, not all of which use the same type of shell.

As Russia threatens from the East and Trump’s support wavers from the West, Europe’s leaders agree that they need a plan to both co-ordinate and expand their military resources. But diverging national interests and competing budget priorities mean that reshaping European defence will be difficult, expensive and lengthy.

And important countries on the eastern flank, like Poland and the Baltic nations, want to do whatever they can to keep the US engaged in NATO and the defence of Europe.

This week’s summit is a first step. The EU leaders will discuss military financing and joint procurement, and be joined by Starmer and by Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary-general. The goal is to hash out priorities, which will inform the continent’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, and its new defence commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, as they work to draw up a more concrete plan, especially for weapons production.

The meeting also has symbolic importance, defence analysts said, as a demonstration that Europe is taking seriously a long-term threat from Russia and the need to reduce its military dependency on the US.

“This is critical for Europeans,” said Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, acting president of think tank the German Marshall Fund. “They don’t have a choice, because war is taking place on their own continent.”

Deterring Russia, which wants to split the United States from NATO and divide both the alliance and the European Union, is “a generational struggle”, she said. “But our political leaders have failed to explain to a younger generation why the alliance is important and why it’s important for Ukraine to win this war,” she said.

Loading

Europe’s relationship with Washington is also on the agenda, including how to cope with Trump’s demands. Officials expect the discussion to address his insistence that he wants to acquire Greenland. The island is an autonomous territory of Denmark, both an EU member state and a NATO ally. Danish and Greenlandic leaders say the territory is not for sale and will not be handed over to the US.

The Greenland issue underscores just how drastically Washington’s relationship to Europe may be changing, as Trump seems more willing to put economic and military pressure on US allies than on its adversaries.

But there is still a degree of shock in Europe.

“Nobody takes it seriously or literally,” Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at Brussels think tank Bruegel, said. He studies European economies and transatlantic relations. “Nobody wants to do so, because it would require rethinking the world as we know it.”

While leaders like Rutte have emphasised that the continent cannot realistically go it alone without the US, the goal is to be more self-sufficient.

EU nations have increased military outlays in recent years. They spent an estimated $US340 billion ($556 billion) on defence in 2024, a 30 per cent increase compared with 2021. At least 23 of NATO’s 32 members now spend 2 per cent or more of their gross domestic product on defence, in line with NATO goals. Rutte has made it clear that 2 per cent is a floor, not a ceiling, and that a new, higher standard will be set this year.

With Russian President Vladimir Putin busy with Ukraine and his military battered, European and NATO officials believe there is a window of perhaps three to seven years before Putin might be tempted to test the NATO alliance.

Finding a fix that boosts and co-ordinates European defence outlays will not be easy.

“The logic tells us that you need to have joint procurement,” European Policy Centre director of studies Janis Emmanouilidis said. But there are barriers, including a lack of trust among nations and conflicting national self-interest.

Loading

When it comes to joint procurement, there is also the issue of how to finance it. Joint funding programs are clearly on the agenda, but exactly what that could look like varies.

It could mean a collective pot of money like Europe raised during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Funding could also come from a vehicle supported by the European Investment Bank, which is the lending arm of the European Union, or from a group of nations outside the structures of the bloc.

In a joint letter last week, 19 European countries said the bank “should continue exploring further ways to take an even stronger role in providing investment funding and leveraging private funding for the security and defence sector”.

The letter suggested a serious discussion of “specific and earmarked debt issuance” for defence projects. For now, key member states like Germany and the Netherlands reject the idea of collective borrowing for defence, and the European Investment Bank is prohibited from making loans for strictly military uses.

Any serious European defence would have to include Britain, a nuclear power and member of the United Nations Security Council, the main reason Starmer has been invited to attend. He has emphasised security co-operation with the European Union as a way to bring post-Brexit Britain closer to the bloc.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.