A wave of anxiety has gripped European defence ministers and armed forces as politicians and military leaders believe that Nato-sceptic Donald Trump could be elected as the next president of the US – and that Russia may not be forced out or defeated in Ukraine. This febrile mood has prompted growing warnings that Europe could find itself involved in a war in Russia, even though at present Russia is embroiled in Ukraine.
At the same time, tensions in the Middle East have continued to rise. Israel’s assault on Gaza continues; hostilities with Iran-aligned Hezbollah in Lebanon increase; and the US and the UK launched bombing raids on Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen to halt raids on shipping in the Red Sea.
What are politicians and generals saying?
Adm Rob Bauer, the chair of Nato’s military committee, said last week that it was “not a given that we are in peace” and that was “why we are preparing for a conflict with Russia and the terror groups if it comes to it” before the start of what the military alliance said was its largest exercise in decades, involving 90,000 troops.
Grant Shapps, the British defence secretary, used even stronger language, arguing the cold war peace dividend was over and that the UK and its allies were “moving from a postwar to a prewar world” with idealism replaced by “hard-headed realism”. It was time, he argued, for re-armament to protect Europe from “Putin’s fury”.
Boris Pistorius, the German defence minister, gave an interview last week suggesting that while a Russian attack was not likely for now “our experts expect a period of five to eight years in which this could be possible”. Europe, he added, was “dealing with a military threat situation … that has not existed for 30 years”.
Norway and Sweden have also made similar warnings in the past month.
Isn’t this just scaremongering by militaries wanting more money?
Planning for warfare, a remote contingency, is what militaries do and there is always pressure from generals and defence ministries to spend more. But the war in Ukraine – which will have run for two years next month – is exhausting western stockpiles of munitions.
It looks increasingly likely, meanwhile, that the US Congress will not vote through a new $61bn (£48bn) military aid package for Ukraine as Republicans ratchet up the pressure over a quid-pro-quo deal to boost security on the US southern border.
A wave of western weapons given so far to Ukraine, including German Leopard 2 and British Challenger 2 tanks; US Bradley fighting vehicles; American, British and French long-range rocket artillery, as well as ammunition and artillery shells have failed to make a dent in the Russian frontlines – and, if future US military aid were to halt as a result of the deadlock in Congress, Europe would struggle to make up the gap.
Experts fear that without the US, Russia could gradually turn the tables.
At the same time, Trump looks set to sweep the Republican nomination after primary victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. Memories of his previous presidency linger in Europe, amid questions about the closeness of his relationship with Putin and his threat at the Nato summit in 2018 that the US might “go it alone” and quit if other countries did not lift their own military spending.
What could this mean for Nato?
Manfred Weber, leader of the conservative European People’s party in the European parliament, used an interview in Politico on Thursday to promote the idea that the EU should take over from Nato in defending the continent, proposing “a European pillar of defence” that should include a nuclear umbrella, provided by France, the only nuclear-armed state in the EU. “When I look at this year as a European politician, the first thing that goes through our minds is Trump,” he said.
There is talk among some EU politicians about the need to create an EU defence commissioner, but the reality is that this manoeuvring is unlikely to supplant Nato, whose members with large militaries include the UK (whose own nuclear weapons are pledged to the alliance) and Turkey as well as the US. Nato members are more likely to try to bed down and endure a Trump presidency as they did from 2016.
Could there really be a wider war with Russia?
Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the British army, suggested that the UK’s professional army was too small to last long in an all-out war with Russia and it would take a “citizen army” to win one, hinting at a return to conscription in an all-out emergency. Though that scenario was rejected by Downing St as a “not helpful” hypothetical, other European countries such as Latvia and Sweden have been reviving forms of military service, and Pistorius said in December he was “looking at all options”.
But it is far from clear that Russia, however aggressive Putin wants to be, would have the capacity to attack Nato member states. It is estimated by western intelligence that 315,000 Russians have been killed or injured in Ukraine and Moscow’s forces have failed repeatedly to break through its smaller neighbour. The anxiety about US support may be real, but the threat is not so significant.
