The message was clear already on Sunday, when European leaders gathered in London after the US President Donald Trump scolded Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyj at the White House.
At the London meeting, they agreed on a united and continued support to Ukraine – something that has proven to be needed even earlier than feared when American media reported during the night to Tuesday that the US is pausing all military support to the war-torn country.
Shortly thereafter, the EU Commission proposed that member states should invest up to 9,000 billion kronor in defense, by increasing their defense expenditures by an average of 1.5 percent of GDP.
But even if Europe is gathering its strength, the US has certain capabilities that are difficult to replace, according to defense economist Per Olsson at the Total Defense Research Institute (FOI).
Getting the money is one thing, but what you invest in is at least as important. We don't defend ourselves in percentage terms.
If we were to compare Europe as a whole with Russia and stack manpower and equipment side by side, it looks pretty good for Europe. That's not where the big difference is, says Olsson.
The US's nuclear weapons are necessary
The problem is rather that Russia, as a single country, can coordinate its forces better than divided Europe – especially if the US, which has contributed with intelligence, communications, and leadership capabilities, is no longer available.
The main threat lies in whether Europe can no longer rely on the deterrent protection provided by the US's nuclear umbrella.
But Kjell Engelbrekt, professor of political science at the Defense University, has not seen anything that suggests it could become a reality.
However, Europe is also lacking conventional resources. The defense industry is already struggling with the orders that exist. Many countries are also having trouble with personnel supply within the defense – a question that has become highly topical since the US Defense Minister Pete Hegseth warned that Europe cannot take American forces' presence "for granted".
There, Europe will need to scale up its capabilities significantly over the next 5-10 years, says Kjell Engelbrekt.
Europe can arm itself
During that period, Russia will also be able to rebuild what has been lost in Ukraine.
But a united Europe, which collectively has a much larger GDP than Russia, should be able to keep pace and, according to Engelbrekt, solve the problem "in the coming years". This assumes, however, state guarantees for industries to be able to scale up their operations faster, he says.
This is the kind of thing that can happen during wartime. It's clear that it can also happen during a gray zone period like the one we're in now, where there is a serious threat even if we're not at war.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer highlighted four crucial points in the continued efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine after the top meeting in London:
Continued military support to Ukraine as long as the war continues, and further pressure on the Russian economy.
A peace must include Ukraine's sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be part of any peace negotiations.
In the event of a peace, the European leaders agree on the goal of preventing any future attempts by Russia to re-invade Ukraine.
A "coalition of the willing" countries will be created to guarantee peace in Ukraine.
