On paper, Europeans seem to have more than sufficient forces to deter or repel a Russian invasion.


trial power and largest economy, has agreed to create a 500 billion euro fund for infrastructure investment, and exempt from its debt brake all defense spending above 1% of GDP — with no upper limit. “This would have been unthink-


able just a few years ago,” says Ian Bremmer, founder and president of the Eurasia Group, a political risk research and consulting firm. On paper, Europeans seem to


have more than sufficient forces to deter or repel a Russian invasion. “What we’ve seen of Mr. Putin’s


army is they are certainly not 10 feet tall,” Ret. U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, a former NATO supreme allied commander, recently told The Wall Street Journal. “They have struggled mightily in fighting Ukraine.”


According to the International


Institute for Strategic Studies, NATO countries have more than a million troops and modern weaponry at their disposal — more than enough to replace the 80,000 U.S. troops who were stationed in Europe at the end of 2024. The alliance has 2,800 self-pro-


pelled artillery systems, almost twice as many as Russia, and 2,000 jet fighters and other planes. Russia’s air force, by contrast, has


an estimated 1,100 fighters, bombers, and ground attack aircraft. Even if the U.S. withdrew from


the alliance, it would still leave criti- cal infrastructure behind. European forces could occupy the 31 permanent bases that the U.S. now operates. But as many defense analysts note, numbers do not tell the entire story.


While Europe has twice the num-


ber of planes as Russia, for instance, its planes lack what Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a London-based think tank, calculates are enough munitions to destroy Russia’s air defenses or hit distant targets on land or in the air. Moreover, surveillance and intel-


ligence information that enables those planes to find and assess tar- gets “are almost exclusively provided by the U.S.,” Bronk recently told The Economist. Or, as Vershbow argued in his


Foreign Affairs article last May, on its own, NATO would lack critical tools needed for a successful defense — “airlift capabilities, air-to-air refu- eling, high-altitude air defense, space assets, and operational intelligence” — all of which the U.S. now supplies. An even more daunting problem


is command and control — or who would lead and coordinate opera- tions in a war. An American general has led NATO’s command structure — overseeing the military activities of all NATO members ever since its creation, Vershbow wrote. “It is doubtful that any other


country in the alliance could play this role.” Britain and France have been dis-


cussing not only a joint European force to support Ukraine, but wheth- er they could replicate America’s nuclear shield, the cornerstone of the alliance, if Trump withdraws it. Together, Britain and France


have around 400 nuclear warheads; Russia has 1,700. And Britain’s small nuclear deter- rent already consumes a fifth of all


By the Numbers Active Military Personnel


Europe Russia


1.97M 1.34M


EQUIPMENT BY TYPE Armored Fighting Vehicles


32,700


10,700


Self-Propelled Artillery 2,800


1,400 Combat Planes 2,000


1,100


NOTE: Data has been rounded. Russian manpower can vary due to the Ukraine war.


Sources: International Institute for Strategic Military Balance 2025, “Building Defense Capacity in Europe: An Assessment,” IISS, 2024


MAY 2025 | NEWSMAX 49


LEFT TO RIGHT: SEAN GALLUP/GETTY IMAGES / CLEMENT MAHOUDEAU/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES / HRISTO RUSEV/GETTY IMAGES


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100