[…]
Researchers from the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy sought to assess when the European Union and the United Kingdom might be prepared to respond to potential Russian aggression by 2030. Multiple Western intelligence reports suggest that Russia might test Europe’s resolve even earlier.
The think tanks previously concluded in September that it would take the bloc several decades to adequately prepare – and in their latest update, released on Thursday, the researchers found that “the situation today is even more concerning”.
That is partly due to a much-weakened US commitment to European security, following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
But the researchers also found that Russian industry continues to significantly outproduce European factories, despite substantial increases in investment. Military procurement across the EU remains slow, bureaucratic, and focused on relatively expensive weapons systems.
Russia’s military spending reached €130 billion in 2024, or 7.1% of its GDP. While combined EU and UK expenditures exceed that figure, the study found that Russia’s military purchasing power remains comparable.
To deter – or, if necessary, fight – Russia without relying on US support, European production of various weapon systems “must increase by a factor of around five”, the report states. Air defence systems, in particular, would need to multiply even more to match Russian capabilities.
“Europe thus remains highly vulnerable and dependent on the US,” the report states.
The researchers conducted a detailed analysis of military procurement data from Germany, Poland, the UK, and France to understand broader European trends. They found that production still lags, and the volume of military hardware being acquired “remain low compared to Cold War periods or Russian numbers.”
[…]
The EU’s €800 billion ReArm Europe plan, for instance, “will be too small, if equipment is bought at current high prices,” the authors caution.
As you’re so keen for war, will you be on the front line sacrificing your life for it? Or will you be leaving that up to others?
This is just scaremongering to normalise the idea of war in people’s minds. To push money towards unnecessary military spending instead of healthcare, education, etc.
Russia has less than 140m people. The EU has over 400m.
The EU has a vastly larger economy, more worldwide allies, more advanced technology, blah blah blah.
Russia can’t even win in a surprise war against a small neighbour ffs.
Unnecessary military spending? Being strong enough to actually counter the enemy is the only way to prevent war to begin with. Military alliance or guarantees that are not worth their paper are useless. If the enemy thinks he can beat you, he might as well try.
We already spend 2% of GDP on defense. And if war broke out do you not think that would increase substantially? Do you not think manufacturing would be forced to change to military manufacturing?
We are not at war. We already have multiple well funded militaries throughout NATO. Why the sudden push to increase funding if not to try and start a war?
If they were genuinely serious about this being DEFENSE spending and not WAR spending it would be spent on bunkers for civilian populations, information for civilians to self sustain themselves when centralised systems no longer can, redundancies added to energy, communications, transport, and food networks.
But instead it’s spent on shiny new planes when there’s already a stockpile of shiny planes. What does that tell you about this push for extra funding? Does it sound like intelligent, well thought out planning for the defence of a population or does it sound like sabre rattling and a chance to try out some new toys?
Defense does not (only) mean bunkers and what not. It actually means stopping the enemy. Like Ukraine does right now. Except that they lost a ton of people, area etc. to the attacker before getting strong enough. Let’s not do it like that and be prepared instead.
Yes, of course, it doesn’t mean ONLY defensive items. But so far, all of the money is being spent on OFFENSIVE items in the name of DEFENSE. With no defensive items being purchased at all.
And again, without wanting to sound like “my dad can beat up your dad”, Russia would not be able to take the EU, let alone NATO, in conventional warfare, and especially if nukes became involved. Ukraine is not comparable.
Whose second hand weaponry is already holding back Russia? What do you think will be the result of the modern stuff being used?
Again, this isn’t defence. It’s war being dressed up as defence to illicit consent.
Because there’s not a single defensive item which makes to aggressor stop. Only offensive items do - by destroying the aggressors offensive capabilities.
Building bunkers only helps if you can also make the enemy stop shooting.
And the civilian population are just meant to die while that is happening? Pray every night their home, of all the homes bombed each night, isn’t one of the ones hit? Hope upon hope that missiles don’t rain down upon them?
If Russia is such a threat, and we are currently at peace and have time, would it not make sense to build some defensive capabilities at the same time as offensive ones? While there’s peace and time to do so? But there’s nothing, no bunkers for civilian populations, no mass education of what to do in x and y scenarios, just extra missiles, drones, and planes.
Does that sound like countries that are preparing for defense or ones that are picking a fight?
Russia is the boogeyman used to justify increasing military spending, and then instead of spending that money protecting our populations from them, it’s used to attack somewhere else. Iran this time, Afghanistan and Iraq and countless other places in the past.
This isn’t defence spending, we don’t need to increase it to 5% of GDP when we already have some of the best funded, equipped, and trained militaries in the world.
Some people just want to justify blowing some shit up.
Ukraine needs those items (or whatever we might replace) to defend.
@Zombie@feddit.uk
No, there is no alternative as the aggressor here is Russia. It was Russia which started the war, and if the EU isn’t willing to upgrade its defense capabilities, Russia will start the wars against other countries. Russia outspends the whole of EU in military built-up, there is much evidence for this as you can also read in this comm in the meantime.
Just to to Ukraine and experience the war yourself to see the alternative.
Addition:
Not long ago Ukrainian heavyweight champion Oleksandr Usyk offered US president Donald Trump the chance to live in his house for a week to experience the reality of the war in Ukraine.
If you think investing in defense is not worthwhile you may call Mr. Usyk, maybe he is willing to extend his offer to you. You can then see yourself what happens in Ukraine every day.
[Edit typo.]
This is blatantly false and it takes a lot of massaging the numbers to reach even parity in spending like the OP article claims (but it uses pre-war PPP figures, which is completely laughable).
Is military spending efficient in the EU? No. Do we spend too much on unreliable US made weapons? Yes!
But Russia is spending a tiny fraction of what the EU+UK does, and its troups are exhausted from a protracted war with Ukraine.
Maybe they will try to poke a sleeping bear to divide us further as a form of asymetric warfare, but in no way (other that nuclear) is Russia an existential threat to Europe right now.
This is just the age old cold war fearmongering back in action. Lots of profits to be made from that…
The EU, and NATO, already invest in defence. It’s not like the 1920s where everything has been left to rot. What’s changed is the push from 2% to 5% of GDP, by those who are just begging for war.
That’s a huge sum of money.
Ukraine is almost alone, they’re getting aid from NATO and the EU but they’re having to do the dirty work themselves. And they’re still holding their own.
Do you honestly believe a war that brings in France, Germany, the UK, (maybe) the USA, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, etc is one that Russia is going to pick? And if they do, have any chance of winning?
Unless China sides with Russia they haven’t a chance, and China doesn’t seem to have shown any form of intent in that regard. They sell equipment to Russia because there’s money to be made, in the same way they sell equipment to NATO countries.
@Zombie@feddit.uk
Oh, no, this is just as China (and Russia) portray things as part of their propaganda. But it’s false.
For example, China сuts drone sales to Ukraine and the West but continues supplying Russia.
China is everything but neutral, and it’s also not just about money as your comment tries to suggest. The government in Beijing pursues its own agenda (and its own agenda only). It goes far beyond Europe.
According to Chinese state-controlled media outlet South China Morning Post, for example, China’s Xi Jinping kicked off his state visit to Russia in May 2025 by thanking Moscow for supporting Taiwan’s reunification with mainland China.
Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s aggression against Taiwan are closely linked, at least for China. Beijing wants control over Taiwan (and supposedly over the South China Sea and other neighbouring areas in Asia, including a part of Siberia which is currently Russian territory).
And there are also Chinese mercenaries fighting for Russia, hired by ads on Chinese social media. Unlike any ‘pro-Western’ content on China’s state-controlled internet, these Russian conscription ads aren’t get censored.
[Edit typo.]