European leaders are grappling with a stark new reality: Ukraine’s defense against Russia is at risk of losing vital military and intelligence support from the United States, the most powerful member of NATO. On March 3, Donald Trump suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv, delivering a severe blow to Ukraine’s frontline efforts. Experts noted that the resulting intelligence gap was felt almost immediately, as Russia launched strikes on critical infrastructure in successive nights, leaving Ukraine unable to anticipate or counter these missile attacks.
Trump’s overt hostility towards Ukraine and President Zelensky, culminating in a contentious meeting at the White House, has led many European leaders to fundamentally reassess the level of support necessary for their war-torn ally. In the absence of American backing, Europe faces the urgent need to fill the void left by the Trump administration, prompting many nations to increase their defense expenditures.
Intelligence
The United States has long been the primary supplier of intelligence to Ukraine throughout the ongoing conflict, providing crucial signals intelligence, satellite imagery, and targeting data used to strike Russian positions. Within the NATO alliance, the only other countries with substantial intelligence capabilities to assist Ukraine are the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. However, their combined resources are unlikely to match the scale and depth of support previously provided by the U.S.
Rod Thornton, a military expert specializing in Russia at King’s College London, expressed that “the Europeans simply cannot step up to match the Americans’ intelligence capabilities.” Kyiv now finds itself without access to critical intelligence needed to thwart incoming attacks, such as radar systems and satellite imagery that detect Russian troop movements and anticipate future bombardments. “Previously, the Americans utilized their intelligence resources to warn Ukrainians about impending strikes, allowing them to take necessary defensive actions,” Thornton explained in an interview with The i Paper. He further emphasized that while European nations possess some intelligence capabilities, they lack the extensive satellite coverage that the U.S. has traditionally provided.
“Yes, the Europeans do have some intelligence capabilities, but very few satellites,” Thornton elaborated. “Even then, the British and French would need to reorganize their satellite coverage to monitor the Ukrainian and Russian battlefields, which is no small feat.” He noted that the sheer number of satellites at the disposal of the U.S. has historically made it an indispensable ally for NATO, stating, “This situation is detrimental not only for Ukraine but also for British and French forces, as it appears the U.S. is stepping back from its NATO commitments.”
Recently, Russian forces intensified their attacks, launching large-scale missile and drone assaults on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, injuring ten individuals, including a child, and disrupting essential heating and water supplies. The following night, Kremlin forces targeted Ukraine’s eastern city of Dobropillia and a settlement in the Kharkiv region with ballistic missiles and drones, resulting in at least 14 fatalities and numerous injuries.
Military Aid
While some analysts believe that Ukraine has enough munitions stockpiled to sustain its defense for several months, the loss of billions in American-made weaponry suggests that it may only be a matter of time before Kyiv’s forces begin to falter. Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has heavily relied on U.S. military assistance, which has amounted to over £52 billion in aid, according to data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. In contrast, military aid from Europe totals just over £50 billion.
As European leaders strive to compensate for the U.S. intelligence gap, they must also quickly make up for the shortfall in artillery, missiles, and air-defense systems to provide Ukraine with any meaningful chance of defense. The European Commission has taken steps to address this issue, proposing a plan to borrow up to 150 billion euros (£126 billion) to lend to EU governments for rearmament. This initiative stems from concerns that Europe can no longer rely on U.S. protection.
Through the International Fund for Ukraine, the UK has committed a £30 million package to supply Altius 600m and 700m systems, developed by U.S. company Anduril, which will monitor areas before striking targets that enter their zones. Dr. Matthew Ford, an expert in war studies from the Swedish Defence University, remarked that the EU’s proposed funding aims to both “support Ukraine in its fight and to replenish European stockpiles after contributing so much military equipment to Ukraine.”
Despite the significant funding boost, Ford cautioned that European nations face the daunting challenge of having not spent the last three years developing a robust land warfare industrial supply base. “The net result is that Europe is currently unable to fill the gap in shell usage that Ukrainians are expending against Russian forces each year,” he stated. Reports indicate that Ukrainians are firing at least 5,000 artillery shells daily, totaling over two million shells annually. The U.S. has supplied more than three million of these munitions, while the EU provided merely one million last year. To effectively support Ukraine, Europe must ramp up its production capabilities significantly.
“Europe must find a way to produce additional shells, and this is before they even consider restocking their own inventories,” Ford warned. “Without replenishing their stock, Europe risks weakening the conventional deterrence necessary to prevent further Russian aggression in the Baltic region.” He emphasized that this dilemma stems from Western Europe’s failure to adequately prepare for the potential fallout should the U.S. elect Trump again, resulting in the current precarious situation.
‘Coalition of the Willing’
Officials from 20 European and Commonwealth nations convened recently to discuss the new reality of defending Ukraine without U.S. military support and to explore the possibility of forming a peacekeeping coalition as part of a future ceasefire agreement. Trump has indicated that he is not inclined to provide a security guarantee in the form of American troops on the ground, suggesting instead that the presence of U.S. companies extracting Ukraine’s rare-earth minerals would suffice to deter Russian aggression. Consequently, it may fall upon Europe to provide the necessary support.
While not all nations interested in this initiative would necessarily contribute troops to the peacekeeping force, they could offer assistance in other capacities. Although it is unlikely that any peace agreement would involve a significant number of European troops in Ukraine due to Russian objections, such a military presence could still represent a formidable deterrent on paper.
Turkey possesses NATO’s second-largest army, numbering 355,200 active personnel, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance 2025. Other key contributors include France with 202,200, Germany with 179,850, Poland with 164,100, Italy with 161,850, the United Kingdom with 141,100, Greece with 132,000, and Spain with 122,200.
“The real question is whether European forces will be sufficiently equipped and appropriately organized to step into Ukraine and perform any necessary tasks, effectively creating a deterrent against further Russian aggression,” Ford noted. He highlighted that sustaining European troops in Ukraine would be paramount.
Former national security adviser and cabinet secretary Lord Mark Sedwill warned that deploying troops could entail a long-term commitment, advising that the UK must “be prepared to exercise strategic patience.” He told BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster on Saturday that if adversaries “believe they can simply wait us out,” then “we will not succeed.” He stressed the necessity of being ready to maintain such an effort over potentially extended periods, which could last for years.
US Leaving NATO Not the ‘End of the World’?
Donald Trump has consistently expressed his dissatisfaction with the NATO alliance, contending that the pact is excessively reliant on U.S. financial and military resources. During his initial term, Trump raised the prospect of the U.S. abandoning the collective defense agreement entirely, and he has recently questioned whether he would defend NATO allies “if they don’t pay.”
Former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace suggested that a U.S. exit from NATO would not signify the “end of the world,” advocating for Europe to bolster its own security and become less dependent on an “unpredictable” White House. “We are already witnessing a new era, where we cannot take U.S. security guarantees for granted,” Wallace remarked during an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today program. “While I deeply regret that the U.S. has been a cornerstone of NATO and European security, if they were to withdraw, we would undoubtedly find ourselves in a very different global landscape.”
Wallace continued, “This wouldn’t be the end of the world if they pulled out of NATO. It would be alarming, but we have both the will and the resources in Europe to secure our own defense.” His remarks followed Trump’s comments on Friday, stating he finds it “easier” to engage with Russia than with Ukraine, ahead of negotiations with Kyiv in Saudi Arabia next week. Trump further remarked that Putin was “doing what anybody else would do” by intensifying missile strikes against Ukraine.
