By Jeanna Smialek and Steven Erlanger
Brussels: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago convinced Europe’s leaders that they needed to spend more money on defence. On Monday, leaders from across the European Union and Britain will meet in Brussels to debate a vexing question: how to pay for it.
It is a concern made more acute by US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
Ukrainian rescuers search for civilians killed when a Russian drone hit an apartment building in Sumy last week.Credit: AP
The United States is the largest military funder of Ukraine’s war effort, but Trump has suggested he will rapidly withdraw US financial and military support and leave it to the Europeans.
He has also insisted that NATO nations ramp up defence outlays to 5 per cent of their annual economic output, a drastic increase from the 3 per cent or 3.5 per cent NATO plans to make its goal at its next summit this summer.
The US itself spends only about 3.4 per cent of gross domestic product on defence.
With the war, the European Union, which was founded on free trade and termed itself a “peace project”, has become more committed to deterrence and defence. It is now scrambling to expand its defence industries and make spending more efficient and collaborative.
Donald Trump is insisting NATO nations boost defence outlays to 5 per cent of their annual economic output.Credit: AP
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will attend Monday’s gathering, the first time since Britain left the European Union that a British leader has met with the 27 leaders of the bloc in Brussels.
Part of the debate will be whether the European Union will be able to raise more money to pay for defence through common debt, as it did to fight COVID-19.
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.
A NATO naval vessel docked in Copenhagen Harbour this week.Credit: AP
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.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will meet with EU leaders this week.Credit: Getty Images
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.
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.
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.