Why Exactly Does Europe Need the United States to Defend Ukraine?
Could Europe beat Russia in Ukraine? Let's dig into the numbers and find out.
by Rod D. Martin
March 11, 2025
Our European “allies” have been livid with the Trump Administration’s push for peace in Ukraine (not to mention its demand that they respect their own laws on freedom of speech). Rumors abound that they even coaxed President Volodymyr Zelensky to bite the hand that feeds him in his now-infamous Oval Office meeting (leading Democrats certainly did, potentially violating the Logan Act). They certainly speak as if they would “pick up the slack” if America walked away.
But would they? And that harsh, more pointed question: why haven’t they?
It’s a good question. To hear some EU leaders (and many Democrats) talk, they plainly want an outcome — pushing Russia completely out of even such Ukrainian territory as it held before the 2022 invasion — that would require deployment of Western combat troops, and probably an outright invasion of Russia. Donald Trump is never going to do that, nor should anyone else who doesn’t want to risk getting nuked (a seemingly reasonable request).
What’s more, the Europeans aren’t doing it, and haven’t done it, and aren’t likely to do it in the future. But they could, and they’d have an enormous advantage, even without us. So why don’t they?
I’m not saying America shouldn’t help. I’m happy to help, as I’ve stated repeatedly. My position remains that (1) it is a gross violation of international law to try to conquer all or part of your neighbor, (2) so Russia is in the wrong, even though (3) the Biden Administration (with EU and Chinese leaders) used their understanding of Russia’s “red lines” to push them into this needless war.
None of that (4) makes Ukraine any less corrupt, or Zelensky a saint. And above all (5) I support our various allies, but I do not support allowing them to take advantage of American generosity. At least be grateful while you ask for the next blank check, jerks.
So far, the check has been pretty blank. America has provided three times as much aid as Europe has, just as America provides 70% of the combined defense spending for the entire NATO alliance.
It gets worse. Since the beginning of the war, Europe has sent twice as much money to Russia — for energy it could get from the United States or the Middle East, but chose over our strenuous objections to buy from Putin — as it has to Ukraine in aid.
If anything, the Europeans are funding Russia’s war effort, not Ukraine’s. The claims that Trump “sympathizes” with Russia are pure projection, or at least deflection.
So strip away the rhetoric, the ideological battles, and the political grandstanding, and you’re left with one simple question:
Why does an entire continent — wealthy, sophisticated, and technologically advanced — need the United States to carry its burden in Ukraine?
To answer that, let’s examine three core factors that dictate a nation’s ability to conduct and win a war: population, economic power, and military strength. These aren’t the only relevant metrics, but they are certainly crucial — and you may be quite certain the Russians factored all of them in before invading.
The State of the War
Russia clearly underestimated both the resilience of the Ukrainian people and the willingness of the West (primarily the United States) to pour billions of dollars in aid and weapons into Kiev’s war effort. That miscalculation cost them dearly: while Ukraine cannot win the war as things stand, Russia has already lost, its war aims (primarily regime change in Kiev and re-establishment of itself as a feared global power) irretrievably trounced three years ago.
Western experts truly believed that Putin would take Kiev in three days, a week tops. Yet here we are, three years later.
I projected then, and have certainly been borne out, that Russia’s military was a hollow shell, a Potemkin village if you will. Can it beat a much smaller power? Usually. Could it beat NATO? Only through a nuclear Pearl Harbor, one which would almost certainly unleash its own destruction.
(N.B., Russia’s exposure as a regional power at best isn’t even limited to this war, as I’ve discussed elsewhere.)
Nevertheless, despite failing in its war aims, Moscow’s forces have certainly not been destroyed. This is now a war of attrition, and that overwhelmingly favors Russia in the absence of outside help.
This is why Donald Trump’s peace talks make sense. Western leaders may demand Ragnarok all they wish. They’re not likely to put themselves on its front lines. When the killing becomes senseless — for both sides — the killing needs to stop. The details won’t be sorted out to anyone’s liking, but sorted they shall be.
And let me be clear: I have no love for Putin. I would be more than happy to see Ukraine push him back to pre-2014 boundaries.
But the reality is, that won’t happen at the current level of Western support. What Ukraine needs isn’t just more money or more high-tech weaponry. It needs manpower. Tanks, missiles, jets — none of it matters if there aren’t enough trained personnel to use them effectively. And so the bigger question emerges:
If we’re going to force Russia’s unconditional surrender, who exactly is going to put the boots on the ground to impose that outcome?
And the bigger, more damning question: Why is it the United States’ responsibility to save Ukraine when it is Europe that has the most at stake, and the greater obligation to act?
Is it because Europe lacks the necessary resources? Let’s find out.
Russia vs. Ukraine vs. the EU
Russia has a population of approximately 143 million, a GDP of around $2.2 trillion, and an active-duty military estimated at 1.32 million personnel.
Ukraine, on the other hand, has a population of just 33 million (in part due to war displacement), a GDP of roughly $190 billion, and an active-duty military of around 900,000 troops. On paper, it’s a complete mismatch. It’s a miracle, and a great testament to Ukraine, that it survived long enough for aid to arrive.
But now let’s introduce Europe into the equation.
The European Union, with its 27 member states, boasts a combined population of 449 million, a GDP of approximately $20.3 trillion, and a collective active-duty military force of around 1.35 million — slightly larger than Russia’s.
And yet, despite possessing three times Russia’s population, ten times its economic output, and comparable military manpower (but add Ukraine’s military and it’s nearly twice the size), Europe still expects the United States to lead the charge and pay the bills against Putin.
“But that’s not a fair comparison!” the war-hawks say. “Those numbers are spread across 27 nations!”
Fine. Never mind that nearly all 27 are part of NATO’s unified command structure. Let’s narrow our focus.
Specifically, let’s look at the three largest countries in Western Europe, who happen also to be the three most vocal about escalating the war. Two of them, Britain and France, even have real navies and nuclear forces, and can meaningfully project power beyond their region (to a limited degree). They’re also permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Russia, China, and the U.S.
So let’s take a look.
Germany: Population of 84 million, GDP of $4.9 trillion, active-duty military of just 100,000.
France: Population of 69 million, GDP of $3.3 trillion, active-duty military of just 200,000.
United Kingdom (no longer in the EU, but still a NATO ally): Population of 68 million, GDP of $3.7 trillion, active-duty military of 138,000. In fact, Britain now has almost twice as many admirals as warships, if that tells you anything.
Each of these nations alone has an economy larger than Russia’s. Each has the capacity to dramatically expand its military, if it had any actual will to do so. Collectively their economies are five times the size of Russia’s. And I repeat: they have strategic nuclear forces that could serve as a deterrent against Putin’s, or if things go badly, could destroy Moscow and St. Petersburg after Russia nukes London and Paris.
Now, let’s put it all together. When we combine Ukraine, the EU, and the UK, we get a dominant coalition with:
A population of 550 million — nearly four times that of Russia.
A GDP of $24 trillion — a staggering ten times Russia’s economic output.
An active-duty military of 2.2 million — about 800,000 more troops than Russia.
So why, with such overwhelming advantages, does Europe still insist on American leadership and American money to do what it should be capable of doing itself? Why don’t they just act?
Europe’s Dependency Problem
After World War II, Europe and East Asia were flattened. Resisting Communism meant rebuilding their economies, keeping their people from starving, and propping up their militaries.
America was up to the task. It came out of the war with a staggering 50% of global GDP (it’s still a whopping 26% even after all these decades). It designed a system of trade imbalances that favored allied exports to the U.S. while protecting their markets from American competition. It also shouldered the burden of the alliance’s global defense.
The problem? The Cold War is over. And after it was won, our allies kept their trade advantages while slashing their militaries. America is actually carrying more of the alliance’s burden than before.
Here’s the hard truth: Western Europe has spent decades taking advantage of the military supremacy of the United States, allowing itself to gut defense budgets in favor of bloated welfare states. It has pursued disastrous energy policies — sacrificing energy independence at the altar of environmental zealotry, turning itself into a client of Russian oil and gas when it could have bought from North America (or even the Middle East) instead.
And the results?
Despite having a larger population, Europe collectively (including Britain) has just 30% of the force the United States provides. Since the war began, Europe has sent Russia twice as much money for energy as it has sent Ukraine in aid. Rather than pivoting aggressively toward energy independence — say, deploying more nuclear plants, and buying American or Middle Eastern natural gas — they have continued subsidizing the very aggressor they pretend to oppose.
And now, they expect America to clean up their mess.
The Hard Question
If Europe wants to steer the alliance, wants an independent foreign policy, wants (as it claims) to expel Russian forces from all of Ukraine and decisively defeat Putin — rather than negotiate a reasonable and lasting peace such as that which Donald Trump is seeking — then it has to put its money where its mouth is.
No wonder several European governments interfered in our election last fall. Not that Biden’s team was going to invade Russia either. But they were certainly on board with our allies’ preferred policy of America Last.
Europe has the people. Europe has the money. Europe has the technology. It has every conceivable advantage over Russia.
What it lacks is the political will.
And that, more than anything, is why it remains dependent on the United States.
Whether the United States will continue putting up with that is the hard question, for Europe if not for us.
No Deals let them defend themselves
This was John Quincy Adams' advice, given two centuries ago to the House of Representatives:
"[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of ... the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all."
Why do I get the feeling that Adams foresaw that once America went "abroad, in search of monsters to destroy", there would be no end to it? Once you make a mess overseas ...