‘Five minutes to midnight’: New-look America sets clock ticking for Europe

If anyone thought Friedrich Merz, the likely new German chancellor, was being alarmist when he declared this week that US President Donald Trump doesn’t care much about the fate of Europe, they were quickly dissuaded.

Just a few days after Merz told voters the priority of his new German government, and indeed Europe, must be to “step by step ... achieve independence from the USA”, the new-look America left the world stunned in the halls of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.

There, the Trump administration sided with Russia and North Korea in voting against a resolution proposed by its European allies that blamed Russia for invading Ukraine. It then pushed through its own resolution with the support of Russia and China that called for a “swift end” to the war, but without repeating previous support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, US President Donald Trump and Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz.Credit: AP, Getty Images

It marked the most tangible example yet of the growing divide between Europe and the United States, having voted with Russia for the first time on a UN resolution concerning European security – an unprecedented break from its NATO allies.

“The world’s greatest democracy, for 80 years its global policeman, is going rogue,” screamed London’s The Times. “Seemingly, it is no longer the criminal regimes in Moscow, Minsk, Tehran and Pyongyang that have cause to fear the US, but its democratic allies.”

Armida van Rij, head of the European program at the UK-based Chatham House think tank, says with the events of the past week, Trump had undermined NATO, its secretary general and the alliance’s Article 5 principle of collective defence.

“The idea behind it was this ‘all for one, and one for all’ belief – and that’s been broken,” she says.

While European leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have since made a beeline for the White House to talk Trump around on the Ukraine security scenario, the continent has sharply accelerated its efforts to address pressing defence needs.

Starmer, who this week finally committed to raising Britain’s defence budget to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, from 2.3 per cent now, has said the United Kingdom would be willing to provide peacekeeping troops if a US “backstop” were provided. Allies have suggested this could involve US air support, logistics and intelligence capabilities.

Britain’s boost to spending, according to analysts, is not nearly enough to fully repair its depleted armed forces, but is better than any other major European NATO power, except Poland.

General Sir Nick Carter, former head of the UK armed forces, warned this week that it was “remarkably hollow” after a “process of neglect over a 30-year period”.

“We might be able to park a destroyer in the Thames to protect parts of London, but nothing more than that,” he told the BBC.

Europe’s defence has relied heavily on US military support since 1945, but replacing this dependence will take time and billions of dollars. The US has long been the cornerstone of NATO’s military strength, with more than 80,000 troops currently stationed in Europe, providing critical capabilities such as midair refuelling, troop mobility and rapid transport of supplies.

Perhaps the biggest strategic unknown is the future of the US nuclear umbrella, particularly its tactical nuclear weapons that European nations lack, along with sophisticated intelligence and reconnaissance tools.

Merz says Britain and France may need to share their nuclear weapons as America can’t be relied on.

What it will take

The US has not only provided the muscle behind the alliance but also the leadership, with the role of Supreme Allied Commander for Europe always held by an American officer. Trump has reassured that troop withdrawals won’t be part of a Ukraine peace agreement, but the uncertainty remains.

So as political and military leaders grappled this week with the reality of defending themselves against an increasingly assertive Russia, a new report painted a stark picture of what it would take for the continent to secure its future without US support.

The study, by the Brussels-based Bruegel research institute and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, estimates that European governments would need to invest another €250 billion ($418 billion) annually to bolster their military capabilities and effectively counter Russian forces.

The analysis reveals that in the absence of American backing, Europe would need to deploy an additional 50 brigades, comprising about 300,000 soldiers, to counter a growing Russian military threat. To equip these forces, at least 1400 new main battle tanks and 2000 infantry fighting vehicles would be necessary – numbers that surpass the combined stockpiles of the German, French, Italian and British land forces.

Furthermore, Europe would have to produce 2000 long-range drones a year to keep pace with Russia’s advancements in drone and missile technology.

Professor Guntram Wolff, a co-author of the report and a Fellow at the Kiel Institute, acknowledges the considerable scale of these demands but stresses that they are economically manageable.

“Even if the scale is initially considerable, in economic terms, this is manageable in relation to the EU’s economic strength,” Wolff says. “The additional costs would only amount to around 1.5 per cent of the EU’s GDP, far less than what was required to address the COVID crisis, for example.”

The study also highlights the significant progress Russia has made in expanding its military capabilities, despite suffering heavy losses in Ukraine. By the end of last year, Russia had deployed about 700,000 soldiers in Ukraine, a dramatic increase from the numbers during its initial invasion in 2022. The country has also ramped up production of tanks and armoured vehicles, producing 1550 new tanks and 5700 new armoured vehicles in 2024 – an increase of 220 per cent and 150 per cent, respectively, compared with 2022. Russia has also made notable advancements in drones and long-range ammunition.

“Russia could have the military strength to attack the EU states within the next three to 10 years,” Wolff says. “We must consider this a real danger. This is another reason why it is in Europe’s best interest to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine, which would likely fuel further aggression.”

Collective security

Despite the urgency, one of the most significant challenges for Europe remains the lack of co-ordination between the continent’s 28 national armed forces. Unlike the unified US military, Europe’s defence forces are spread across multiple nations, each with its own priorities and capabilities.

“If each country tries to defend itself alone, it will cost more,” Wolff says. “Self-insurance is more expensive than collective security. Closer co-ordination and joint procurement are therefore essential.”

French President Emmanuel Macron made a beeline for Washington this week to meet with US President Donald Trump.Credit: Bloomberg

To address this, the authors propose increasing European defence spending from the current 2 per cent to between 3.5 and 4 per cent of GDP annually – still less than the 5 per cent Trump has called for. For Germany, Europe’s largest economy, this would mean raising its defence budget from €80 billion to as much as €140 billion annually, representing about 3.5 per cent of its GDP.

Sir Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King’s College London, said this week that on the most dire interpretation of the US position, Europeans had to now take full responsibility for their own defence – and that of Ukraine.

“All while being excluded from the vital negotiations that will determine the extent of the challenge they face, especially if this involves an emboldened Russia,” he said.

“None of this should have come as a surprise. Trump has often said that he wants to repair relations with Russia while complaining that Europe has been freeloading on the US and should no longer expect to be bailed out at times of crisis.”

Freedman said the moment felt like one of historic significance.

“The situation is fluid, which provides European nations with opportunities to exercise influence – so long as each country recognises that whatever happens next, they will have to do far more for their own security than they have been inclined to do in the past,” he said.

Trump, meanwhile, speaking alongside Starmer, said of ending Russia’s war in Ukraine: “It’ll be fairly soon, or it won’t happen at all.”

As Merz said on Sunday, this is really “five minutes to midnight” for Europe.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.