[…]
Researchers from the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy sought to assess when the European Union and the United Kingdom might be prepared to respond to potential Russian aggression by 2030. Multiple Western intelligence reports suggest that Russia might test Europe’s resolve even earlier.
The think tanks previously concluded in September that it would take the bloc several decades to adequately prepare – and in their latest update, released on Thursday, the researchers found that “the situation today is even more concerning”.
That is partly due to a much-weakened US commitment to European security, following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
But the researchers also found that Russian industry continues to significantly outproduce European factories, despite substantial increases in investment. Military procurement across the EU remains slow, bureaucratic, and focused on relatively expensive weapons systems.
Russia’s military spending reached €130 billion in 2024, or 7.1% of its GDP. While combined EU and UK expenditures exceed that figure, the study found that Russia’s military purchasing power remains comparable.
To deter – or, if necessary, fight – Russia without relying on US support, European production of various weapon systems “must increase by a factor of around five”, the report states. Air defence systems, in particular, would need to multiply even more to match Russian capabilities.
“Europe thus remains highly vulnerable and dependent on the US,” the report states.
The researchers conducted a detailed analysis of military procurement data from Germany, Poland, the UK, and France to understand broader European trends. They found that production still lags, and the volume of military hardware being acquired “remain low compared to Cold War periods or Russian numbers.”
[…]
The EU’s €800 billion ReArm Europe plan, for instance, “will be too small, if equipment is bought at current high prices,” the authors caution.
A think tank paid for by rich countries, banks and big corporations says that we have no other choice than to spend absurd amounts of money to defeat our rival.
If this was the first time this happened in history I could forgive that you fall for this propaganda. But there is a 70 year history of this happening to the US and its allies.
They are gonna cut social spending, they will shove money to their international friends via the IMF and “development” agencies and you are gonna applaud them for it.
If they were serious about this, if these were the “european values” everyone talks about, we would prevent the arms manufacturers from war profiteering and deliver the equipment to Ukraine directly. It is not the concept of arms delivery that I criticize - it is the concrete implementation. They take on huge debts for something that can be done much cheaper.
If I wanted to make an unbelievable list for a joke, thats what it would look like.
What is a good source you trust with this topic?
I seriously don’t know. So far anything i came across had links to dubious economic or political interests.
When it comes to broader analysis of what is going on, i like to listen to John Mearsheimers presentations and interviews. Mearsheimer is a professor in Chicago and a “Realist” in foreign policy. However i doubt him to have the insight into such details as to who can outspend who.
Problem in this particular case for instance is:
The researchers conducted a detailed analysis of military procurement data from Germany, Poland, the UK, and France to understand broader European trends. They found that production still lags, and the volume of military hardware being acquired “remain low compared to Cold War periods or Russian numbers.”
That is fundamentally something where you need to be given access to the detailed information. Why would a military or ministry of defense give such information if conclusions they might not like, could be published?
As for the Kiel institute they have a long lasting academic history which gives them credibility imo.
The Bruegel however was founded 20 years ago and were run by the following guys:
Bruegel’s former chairs Leszek Balcerowicz and Jean Claude Trichet are honorary chairmen of Bruegel. Mario Monti is the founding chairman of Bruegel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leszek_Balcerowicz#BELLS
During the Eurozone crisis Balcerowicz has been an outspoken supporter for fiscal discipline and has been frequently dubbed the anti-Bernanke for his scorn of distortionary fiscal stimulus. In various articles he has developed a comparison between the fiscally-profligate PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) and the fiscally-disciplined BELLs (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).[38] Responsible fiscal policy brings about better growth outcomes, claims Leszek Balcerowicz.[38] He has many followers among East European economists, most prominently Simeon Djankov, Deputy prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Bulgaria between 2009 and 2013.[39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Trichet#Controversy
In January 2003, Trichet was put on trial with eight others charged with irregularities at Crédit Lyonnais, one of France’s biggest banks. Trichet was in charge of the French treasury at that time. He was cleared in June 2003, which left the way clear for him to move to the ECB.[31] A parliamentary inquiry found no wrong-doing by Trichet, other civil servants or the three finance ministers in office during the critical period.[32] 2009 banking crisis
Within the European Central Bank, Trichet strongly resisted any contemplation of Greece defaulting on its debt. It was only in October 2011, with the end of his term imminent, that consensus was reached to allow a 50% cut in the value of Greek bonds.[33] Trichet during the WEF 2010 Hypo Alpe Adria bailout
As part of a 2015 investigation launched by Austria’s parliament into defunct lender Hypo Alpe Adria, then opposition party NEOS named Trichet among 200 people it wanted to question.[34] At the time of Austria purchasing Hypo Alpe Adria from BayernLB in late 2009, Trichet had lobbied for the deal.[35]
Trichet has been criticised for the ECB’s response to the Great Recession, which emphasised price stability over recovery and growth.[36][37] He was also criticized when he refused to answer a question about a possible conflict of interests concerning his successor’s involvement at Goldman Sachs before taking charge as head of the ECB.[38]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Monti#Labour_market_reforms
On 20 January 2012, Monti’s government formally adopted a package of reforms targeting Italy’s labour market. The reforms are intended to open certain professions (such as taxi drivers, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers and notaries) to more competition by reforming their licensing systems and abolishing minimum tariffs for their services.[40][41] Article 18 of Italy’s labour code, which requires companies that employ 15 or more workers to re-hire (rather than compensate) any employee found to have been fired without just cause,[42][43] would also be reformed. The reforms to Article 18 are intended to make it easier for companies to dismiss or lay off employees, which would hopefully encourage companies to hire more employees on permanent rather than short-term renewable contracts.[43] The proposals have been met with strong opposition from labour unions and public protests.
So we have neoliberals, some involved in shady and possibly criminal activities, leading a thinktank mainly partnering with mayor banks, fossil energy companies, big tech companies and the usual suspects from the consulting sphere.
From that environment we can always expect conclusions in the space of:
- Lower taxes on companies
- Increase taxes on individuals and remove social security systems
- Government austerity except for military spending
- Using the military to serve the corporations interests abroad. Remain an economy centered around fossil fuels and slow down any renewable enegery.
Russia’s military spending reached €130 billion in 2024
The EU’s €800 billion ReArm Europe plan, for instance, “will be too small, if equipment is bought at current high prices,
In other words, we are ripped off.
Or we are not efficient anymore. This is the main problem, not a lag in spending.
Perhaps the issue is kinda the weaponry type. Nato has long gone for expensive smart weaponry but this stuff is expensive. Where as russia is more into dumb cheap weapons.
No, we just pay people living wages.
Stories about the Russian economy argue that Russia will be broke soon because they have to pay high wages in the arms industries. Are they wrong and they are exploiting their workers?
But wages are usually a fraction of the costs. Amunition and even weapon systems have to be built in an automated way. Wages should’t be the issue.
Russia will be broke soon
I’m reading this kind of news for a few years now
Europe as a whole still hasn’t gotten the message yet. The message being that if they don’t manage to defend the borders, we’ll be in for a very long-term conflict with Russia directly. As much as I am principally against military build up and the like, it’s the only possible choice if the EU intends to keep its borders intact in the long run.
As you’re so keen for war, will you be on the front line sacrificing your life for it? Or will you be leaving that up to others?
This is just scaremongering to normalise the idea of war in people’s minds. To push money towards unnecessary military spending instead of healthcare, education, etc.
Russia has less than 140m people. The EU has over 400m.
The EU has a vastly larger economy, more worldwide allies, more advanced technology, blah blah blah.
Russia can’t even win in a surprise war against a small neighbour ffs.
Unnecessary military spending? Being strong enough to actually counter the enemy is the only way to prevent war to begin with. Military alliance or guarantees that are not worth their paper are useless. If the enemy thinks he can beat you, he might as well try.
We already spend 2% of GDP on defense. And if war broke out do you not think that would increase substantially? Do you not think manufacturing would be forced to change to military manufacturing?
We are not at war. We already have multiple well funded militaries throughout NATO. Why the sudden push to increase funding if not to try and start a war?
If they were genuinely serious about this being DEFENSE spending and not WAR spending it would be spent on bunkers for civilian populations, information for civilians to self sustain themselves when centralised systems no longer can, redundancies added to energy, communications, transport, and food networks.
But instead it’s spent on shiny new planes when there’s already a stockpile of shiny planes. What does that tell you about this push for extra funding? Does it sound like intelligent, well thought out planning for the defence of a population or does it sound like sabre rattling and a chance to try out some new toys?
Defense does not (only) mean bunkers and what not. It actually means stopping the enemy. Like Ukraine does right now. Except that they lost a ton of people, area etc. to the attacker before getting strong enough. Let’s not do it like that and be prepared instead.
Yes, of course, it doesn’t mean ONLY defensive items. But so far, all of the money is being spent on OFFENSIVE items in the name of DEFENSE. With no defensive items being purchased at all.
And again, without wanting to sound like “my dad can beat up your dad”, Russia would not be able to take the EU, let alone NATO, in conventional warfare, and especially if nukes became involved. Ukraine is not comparable.
Whose second hand weaponry is already holding back Russia? What do you think will be the result of the modern stuff being used?
Again, this isn’t defence. It’s war being dressed up as defence to illicit consent.
But so far, all of the money is being spent on OFFENSIVE items in the name of DEFENSE
Because there’s not a single defensive item which makes to aggressor stop. Only offensive items do - by destroying the aggressors offensive capabilities.
Building bunkers only helps if you can also make the enemy stop shooting.
And the civilian population are just meant to die while that is happening? Pray every night their home, of all the homes bombed each night, isn’t one of the ones hit? Hope upon hope that missiles don’t rain down upon them?
If Russia is such a threat, and we are currently at peace and have time, would it not make sense to build some defensive capabilities at the same time as offensive ones? While there’s peace and time to do so? But there’s nothing, no bunkers for civilian populations, no mass education of what to do in x and y scenarios, just extra missiles, drones, and planes.
Does that sound like countries that are preparing for defense or ones that are picking a fight?
Russia is the boogeyman used to justify increasing military spending, and then instead of spending that money protecting our populations from them, it’s used to attack somewhere else. Iran this time, Afghanistan and Iraq and countless other places in the past.
This isn’t defence spending, we don’t need to increase it to 5% of GDP when we already have some of the best funded, equipped, and trained militaries in the world.
Some people just want to justify blowing some shit up.
Ukraine needs those items (or whatever we might replace) to defend.
No, there is no alternative as the aggressor here is Russia. It was Russia which started the war, and if the EU isn’t willing to upgrade its defense capabilities, Russia will start the wars against other countries. Russia outspends the whole of EU in military built-up, there is much evidence for this as you can also read in this comm in the meantime.
Just to to Ukraine and experience the war yourself to see the alternative.
Addition:
If you think investing in defense is not worthwhile you may call Mr. Usyk, maybe he is willing to extend his offer to you. You can then see yourself what happens in Ukraine every day.
[Edit typo.]
Russia outspends the whole of EU in military built-up
This is blatantly false and it takes a lot of massaging the numbers to reach even parity in spending like the OP article claims (but it uses pre-war PPP figures, which is completely laughable).
Is military spending efficient in the EU? No. Do we spend too much on unreliable US made weapons? Yes!
But Russia is spending a tiny fraction of what the EU+UK does, and its troups are exhausted from a protracted war with Ukraine.
Maybe they will try to poke a sleeping bear to divide us further as a form of asymetric warfare, but in no way (other that nuclear) is Russia an existential threat to Europe right now.
This is just the age old cold war fearmongering back in action. Lots of profits to be made from that…
The EU, and NATO, already invest in defence. It’s not like the 1920s where everything has been left to rot. What’s changed is the push from 2% to 5% of GDP, by those who are just begging for war.
That’s a huge sum of money.
Ukraine is almost alone, they’re getting aid from NATO and the EU but they’re having to do the dirty work themselves. And they’re still holding their own.
Do you honestly believe a war that brings in France, Germany, the UK, (maybe) the USA, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, etc is one that Russia is going to pick? And if they do, have any chance of winning?
Unless China sides with Russia they haven’t a chance, and China doesn’t seem to have shown any form of intent in that regard. They sell equipment to Russia because there’s money to be made, in the same way they sell equipment to NATO countries.
Unless China sides with Russia they haven’t a chance, and China doesn’t seem to have shown any form of intent in that regard. They sell equipment to Russia because there’s money to be made, in the same way they sell equipment to NATO countries.
Oh, no, this is just as China (and Russia) portray things as part of their propaganda. But it’s false.
For example, China сuts drone sales to Ukraine and the West but continues supplying Russia.
China is everything but neutral, and it’s also not just about money as your comment tries to suggest. The government in Beijing pursues its own agenda (and its own agenda only). It goes far beyond Europe.
According to Chinese state-controlled media outlet South China Morning Post, for example, China’s Xi Jinping kicked off his state visit to Russia in May 2025 by thanking Moscow for supporting Taiwan’s reunification with mainland China.
In a signed article in Russia’s state-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper … [Xi Jinping wrote that Taiwan’s] unification [with China] must be upheld as part of the post-war international order … Celebrating the “enduring friendship” between Moscow and Beijing, he said the two countries had supported each other since World War II …
Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s aggression against Taiwan are closely linked, at least for China. Beijing wants control over Taiwan (and supposedly over the South China Sea and other neighbouring areas in Asia, including a part of Siberia which is currently Russian territory).
And there are also Chinese mercenaries fighting for Russia, hired by ads on Chinese social media. Unlike any ‘pro-Western’ content on China’s state-controlled internet, these Russian conscription ads aren’t get censored.
[Edit typo.]
