“The NATO Summit in the Hague was a success for all participants, of course, given the political realities on both sides of the ocean. Donald Trump visited the continent after a successful blow to Iranian nuclear facilities, showing his point determination and indispensable power of American military power.”, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
Europeans received, though blurred, but the assurances that the United States will come to the rescue in the event of a conflict with Russia. Therefore, they have bargaining time to the construction of “strategic autonomy” – until the United States collapses its presence by moving their strengths and means to other strategically important regions, and Ukraine will continue to destroy Russian aggressive potential.
In the ideal world, the Alliance’s decision should condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine and decide on the country’s membership in NATO in the course. However, under the cadence of the 47th President, this will obviously not happen, because Putin nuclear blackmail and propaganda work that NATO’s expansion to the east has caused this genocide war. However, Russia has identified the long -term threat of Euro -Atlantic security, and Ukraine is a security factor that contributes to this security. Therefore, they agreed to assist Kiev from defense budgets, which have pledged to increase significantly.
Advertising:
Until the Alliance reaches a new consensus on Ukraine’s membership, pre -agreed decisions – in particular, the 2008 Bucharest Summit is that “Ukraine will be a member of NATO”; Vilnius Summit in 2023 that “the future of Ukraine is in NATO”; And also the Washington Summit of 2024 that our country is on a “irreversible way to full Euro -Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.”
Fuchidid trap Although former President Richard Nixon in 1994 expressed the opinion that the United States “may have created Frankenstein”, the gradual awareness of the Chinese threat began to come only almost two decades later. In 2011, Barack Obama announced his “turn to Asia”, hoping that constructive dialogue with Beijing and expanding alliances and networks of regional partnership are capable of preventing a hot conflict between a declining and growing power – a maxim that was formulated by the author. History of the Peloponnesian War.
Having cemented his political power and ensuring monopoly control over the military, Xi Jinping decided that it was time for more decisive action to assert the leading role of China in the world and solve the Taiwanese problem for his cadence. This was manifested in increasing scale and complexity, as well as in the expansion of the geography of exercises that prepare the People’s Liberation Army to “return to the home of the harbor” of the freedom island.
Changes in rhetoric and behavior, as well as poorly hidden intentions are supported by money and “iron”. Thus, over the past fifteen years, the official defense spending has increased by 167.8% and amount to $ 245 billion, while experts have estimated real costs much higher – up to $ 400 billion. During this time, the nuclear arsenal increased by 222% or 287% (from 155 to 500-600 warheads), and over the next five years it should increase to 1000 warheads, which will increase by 545% in two decades. Beijing plans to double the ability of the global projection of force, bringing the number of aircraft carriers to six, as well as increasing the number of warships to 435 – although it already has a quantitative advantage over the United States (370 versus 296). The US has and obviously maintain a numerical and technological advantage in the Air Force. However, it is difficult to assess the future balance of forces in the conditions of revolutionary development of artificial intelligence and unmanned systems.
China is not only a military but also a serious economic and technological threat. Last year, the volume of trade between the US and China exceeded $ 660 billion, with a deficit for Washington at 263 billion. Theft of American intellectual property China is estimated at 225-600 billion annually. He is also a leader in artificial intelligence: in 2014-2023 he submitted more than 38 thousand patents (for comparison, the USA – only 6 thousand). 83% of Chinese companies already use generative SI (in the USA – 65%). Beijing has 42% of patents per 5G and controls up to 90% of the world’s processing of rare land – key for high -tech and military production. That is why the Americans were interested in the agreement with Ukraine and discussed the issues of Greenland annexation.
A gloomy strategic picture is a cause partly not too diplomatic in the form of encouraging Europeans to take the safety of the continent in their own hands and requires the Donald Trump administration to reorient all available resources to the Indo-Pacific. This was justified by the suspension of assistance to Ukraine, although neither the size nor the nature of the help pack had critical importance. It seems that this decision was made by skeptics on Ukraine-the team of Vice President of the United States, Jay Di Vens and “Chinese hawk” by Elbridge Kolby, who holds the post of Deputy Minister of Defense for Policy. The tariff war of the current administration against China aims to equalize trade imbalances, reduce astronomical debt ($ 36.2 trillion), and the return of high -tech companies and industry in the United States.
Little time and dilemma “butter and guns” Europeans have relied on American military and economic power for too long. The Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008 not only “sleep”, but also resorted to a pernicious strategy for the peace of mind of Moscow by even greater involvement in European and world affairs. The Russian illegal annexation of Crimea and proxy in the Donbass did not become a bell for awakening. However, responding to the capture of Crimea, the Alliance decided to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. However, at the time of a large-scale invasion of Ukraine, only 9 countries out of 30 reached this indicator, and only in 2025 it would be determined ten years ago by all member countries. In 2024, the United States spent $ 755 billion. The defense, which is about two -thirds of the total NATO defense expenses, while European members spent about 430 billion.
At the NATO summit in Hague in June 2025, the Allies reached a historical arrangement to increase defense expenditures to 5 % GDP by 2035where 3.5% will be directed directly to the defense, and another 1.5% – to the defense -related cost. However, the United States plans to maintain defense costs at about the current level (3.38% of GDP), and Spain – only at 2% of GDP. If all Europeans fulfill their obligations, then together with Spain, the total expenses will reach more than $ 1.2 trillion. And will exceed American.
Significant increase in defense costs will be constrained by a slow, after -crisis growth of European economies – at 0.8% in 2024, although the eurozone growth next year is forecast at 1.4%. Industrial production decreased by 2.2% in the Eurozone a year before July 2024. Europeans also have tariff restrictions on the Trump administration and are complicated by global reconairs of the PRC.
Two years after a large -scale invasion, the European defense industry was significantly revived. The purchase of weapons and investments in R&D increased from 58 billion euros to 102 billion, and the revenues of European companies have increased by more than a quarter and reached more than 200 billion euros. However, there are a number of “narrow tubes”, including permits, lack of qualified engineers and staff, raw material shortages and components, etc.
The lag of the European defense industry from the rate of response to threats pushed a number of countries to Procurement of South Korean weapons, equipment and ammunition systems. Exports of South Korea defense products to Europe in 2022-2024 amounted to $ 40.8 billion. At the same time, Poland – the largest client – has signed a comprehensive agreement totaling more than $ 60 billion, and Romania and Norway occupy the second and third place with the purchase of defense goods for 920 million and 500 million respectively.
A dilemma appeared in front of Europeans: What proportion of procurement to Americans and South Koreans, and which is in their own manufacturersthat, in terms of jobs and stimulating the development of industrial capabilities, is attractive, but in time dimension – risky.
According to the British soldiers, Russia takes five years to restore the capacity of 2022, and the same amount to eliminate all the weaknesses found by the war in Ukraine. Instead Danish intelligence predicts that already Six months after the end of the war, Russia will be capable of a local conflict with the border state, for two years – before the regional war in the Baltic, and for five years – before a large -scale war in Europe.
According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The total cost of replacing the usual armed capabilities of the United States is from $ 226 to $ 344 billion. “Only for new weapons and platform systems.” And these calculations do not include other critical dependencies of European countries on the United States, in particular in the fields of intelligence, space, cybersecurity and nuclear capabilities, as well as the necessary investments in infrastructure, support for the life cycle of weapons. Considering these cost items will bring this figure closer to $ 1 trillion.
Mark Rutte stated that it was necessary Increase airfilling and anti -rocket capacity by 400%. In order to guarantee the preference in the air, Europeans may need about 400 new combat aircraft. European Initiative to Create Grand Direct Missile Systems (Terrestrial winged rocket with a distance of 1000 Of course, there are still national programs: the Franco-British project of the future winged rocket (improvement of Storm Shadow/ Scalp) and the anti-ship missile (Improvement by ExOCET/ Harpoon), the British-German project of development of the rocket with a distance of 2000 km.
Europeans need to solve the problem with lack of will to resist their citizens. May Youugov Polls Found the uncertainty of Europeans in the ability of their armed forces to defend the country – in particular, the Germans (74 %), Italians (68 %) and British (52 %). Only one percent more than the French are convinced that the armed forces will cope (44 % against 43 %). According to GallUp last year, the vast majority of Germany (57 %), Italy (78 %), Spain (53 %) and Britain (50 %) were found Not ready to protect their country with weapons in their hands. At the same time, most Swedish citizens (47 %), Poland (45 %) and Romania (42 %) have shown such readiness.
The strategic challenge is the ability to be nuclear restraint ofwhich has one of the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons. Yes, Britain and France have approximately 515 nuclear warrior and delivery. In addition, about 100 American nuclear bombs are located on the territory of five European members of NATO.
Britain plans to buy 12 F-35A Lightning aircraft to obtain a nuclear triad aircraft component and join the NATO nuclear exchange mechanism, becoming a sixth European country in which American nuclear bombs will be located. France adds two Rafale F5 fighters, develops a new generation of submarines, new versions of a hypersonic missile and a submarine ballistic missile.
The likelihood of losing an American nuclear umbrella has pushed discussions about building a pan -European containment system, and in several capitals, a variant of acquisition of one’s own capabilities is probably already being considered.
In March, Emmanuel Macron announced the opening strategic dialogue to protect European alliesin which interest, in particular, Germany, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the Baltic countries. In June, Britain and France agreed to deepen their nuclear cooperation and coordination, as well as to create a joint nuclear governing group. However Specific mechanisms of pan -European nuclear restraint are still at the initial stage of development.
Obviously The United States expect from their European allies to support China. The NATO strategic concept of 2022 clearly defined the dependence of Euro-Atlantic security on the development of the situation in the Indo-Pacific. The Alliance has expanded interaction with the four countries of the region – Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. However, only four European NATO member countries have some capabilities that can strengthen US presence in the region. Britain and Italy send their aircraft carriers to the region, France – a nuclear submarine, frigate and battle planes, while Germany is several frigates. Washington expects specific plans to the region in the region, the intensification of missile and air capacity, as well as an increase in the naval components available for operations in the Naval Components.
Therefore, The United States will remain the cornerstone of European security in deterrent to Russia and protect the continent into a hypothetics Nomi conflict in the near future. Washington will balance its involvement in European affairs, depending on the development of the situation in the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East. With proper financing and stimulating industry, Europeans are able to significantly strengthen their own capacity in the medium term. And only in the horizon of decades or two Europeans will become true “strategic autonomy”.
Finland 2.0 In Ukraine, talking about the new European security architecture as NATO alternative is quite popular – With Ukraine as its full component. Also common is the opinion that Our state is the most capable of the European continent and already meets the criteria of the Alliance.
Indeed, only a few European countries have the will and some capacity for confrontation in a probable conflict with Russia. However, The ratio of strength forces Europeans to maintain unity within NATO and make every effort to keep the United States. No one in Europe will consider the alliance alternative seriously in the near future.
Our Western partners are fond of the stability of the Ukrainian people and the ability of the defense forces to resist the incomparably stronger enemy. Ukraine stood in the first days of a large-scale invasion, having only Western anti-tank and portable anti-aircraft missile complexes, and only later began to receive other types of Western weapons. The lack of individual capabilities and the quantitative lack of the systems provided have forced Ukraine to compensate for these gaps with innovative means – unmanned systems and new approaches to their use.
However, a possible NATO conflict with Russia will not be a repetition of war in Ukraine – because of another organization, capacity and doctrines adopted in the Alliance. Of course, the experience of this war makes adjustments to both sides. Even if European NATO members consider Ukraine’s role in hypothetical conflict with Russia, Calculation of risks and benefits from its fastest accession to the Alliance in the near future will not be in our favor.
Considering the potential and the need not only to reflect the next Russian aggression, but also to be able to restrain it, there is no better option than Ukraine’s participation in the collective security system. This necessitates continue reforming the security and defense sector to meet the criteria of membership. An example is Finland, which developed partnership with the countries of the region and NATO, increased defense on the basis of the Alliance standards and harmoniously joined it as a “window of opportunity”.
Stable assistance of NATO member states, which can reach more than $ 40 billion. Every year, it is associated with increasing funding for defense expenditures, will become a powerful factor in strengthening Ukraine’s defense capability. This will also be facilitated by the Danish Model of Direct Investment in the Ukrainian OPC, and its integration into the pan-European system, the possibility of receiving support and participation in joint projects, which is provided by the European Defense and Industrial Strategy.
No country in recent history has implemented such large -scale reforms in the Security and Defense Sector during the War of this scale. Therefore, there are no ready recipes. This is especially true for the restructuring of the Armed Forces and reform system of the SBU. The approach prevails: “If it works – do not touch.” At the same time, Ukrainian society remains deeply devoted to comprehensive reforms necessary for joining the EU and NATO. But it should be emphasized: The main driver of these changes is not the distant prospect of membership, but the survival of the nation.
Despite all the challenges, Ukraine has made significant progress in reforms that was reflected in In general, a positive assessment of NATO implementation by Ukraine adapted annual national program (ARNP) in 2024 – the basic document that serves as a guide for membership.
Experts and civil society have played an important role in promoting reforms, although sometimes their pressure on state institutions looked excessive. However, thanks to the active position of civil society, the number of loud corruption scandals decreased last year, and the rating of Ukraine in the index of corruption perception has improved. However, despite the positive steps, given the expectations for the development of the institutional capacity of anti -corruption bodies and public participation, we can expect that this year’s assessment will be more acute. Especially – regarding the poor work of individual institutions, delay with the appointment of the head of the Specialized Anti -Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the situation around Vitaliy Shabunin.
An important step in streamlining defense procurement was the creation of two independent state -owned enterprises – the Agency of Defense Procurement (AOP) and the state operator of the rear (DOT). However, despite their obligations, the Ministry of Defense (MOU) tried to unite these structures and did not approve the Supervisory Board of AOP. The tension in the relationship between MOU and AOP has found a deeper problem: the existing procurement model has structural defects that adversely affect defense.
Changing the leadership of the Ministry of Defense gives an opportunity make adjustments to Modus Operandiwhich was criticized by civil society, which, although not reflected in the Alliance’s estimates, was exactly known to its representatives. The new minister has excellent starting positions, in particular, the relationships with partners in Brussels and other capitals, and will be able to fully use the capabilities of NATO representation in Ukraine, headed by an experienced leader.
It is advisable to consider the minister Restoration of the work of a high -level advisor on defensive reform (DRAB – DRAB REFORMS Advisory Board) to ensure that Ukraine’s strategic goals and NATO standards are compliance with, as well as more effectively to fulfill one of the key objectives of the Ministry – “ensuring the formation and implementation of state national security policy in military fields, defense and military construction.” That is, not only a managerial function to ensure defense forces, but also to form policies, to develop strategic and doctrinal documents, etc.
Can advise and install Transparent cooperation with non -state actors. This approach will make key decisions based on wide consultations and with proper care, which will contribute to transparency, accountability and reduction of public discontent caused by lack of information or false ideas. However, this will not deprive the power of just and constructive criticism – an integral part of democracy.
The Ministry may go out on initiative on Increasing cooperation between anti -corruption and law enforcement agencies or establishing a specialized body to investigate crimes in the security and defense sector – such as fraud, abuse of authority and corruption.
To solve structural The problem in the work of AOP and DOT, D. Schmigal can make appropriate changes, in particular, replace the mechanism of control over these organizations, of course after consultation with NATO. One of the options can be Reforming the MOE Main Inspectorate, whose staff have specialized and access to state secrets, giving it to audit and investigations. The approval of the appointment of the Head of Inspectorate by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence will strengthen civil control over the security and defense sector. The main inspection will report to the Committee and, on its requests, will conduct audits and investigations in case of such need.
Other, although less appropriate, is a variant of reproduction of the General Military Inspectorate under the President of Ukraine (which functioned in 1995-2001), as this creates an excessive concentration of powers and unnecessary load on the head of state during the war.
It is also necessary Restore the participation of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence in the Defense Procurement Program Procedure – As it was before the approval in 2022 “peculiarities of defense procurement for the period of legal regime of martial law”. The above steps will strengthen parliamentary control in the field of security and defense in accordance with NATO standards, providing the involvement of experts with access to the State Security Service.
A separate urgent problem for which the minister may take is Restoration of military justice system in Ukraine According to the best practices of the Alliance Member States. This issue goes far beyond fairness, because it directly affects the motivation and actions of the command composition of the defense units.
NATO will be transformed according to external and internal calls. Security and defense reforms should take place in line with this transformation and bring Ukraine closer to the strategic goal – membership in the Alliance. Partners are ready to assist us in every possible way. But despite the uncertainty within the time of the entry, we have no right to waste time and passively wait for the opening of “Opportunities Window”.
Alexander Hara, Director of the Center for Defense Strategies
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.