4 Reasons Why European Defense Still Depends on America

In March 2025, a wave of unease swept through European capitals. A report from The Washington Post revealed that European Union (EU) officials are increasingly anxious about the future of their collective security—not because of immediate threats from adversaries, but due to shifting political winds across the Atlantic.

At the heart of their concern is the fragile foundation of European defense capabilities, which remain deeply intertwined with continued support from the United States.

Under President Donald Trump, there is growing speculation that Washington could halt or significantly reduce support for American-made weapon systems that are vital to NATO allies. This fear is not without merit.

Over the past decade, the U.S. has accounted for nearly two-thirds of all European arms imports, including stealth aircraft, integrated missile defense systems, and next-generation surveillance drones.

Critically, these high-tech platforms form the backbone of modern European defense infrastructure. They are not only manufactured in the U.S., but also rely on American components, proprietary software, and ongoing data access to remain fully operational.

So, why does European defense still depend so deeply on the United States? And perhaps more provocatively: why hasn’t that changed, even after decades of growing tensions, political shocks, and increasingly unpredictable American leadership?

Read also: 5 Signs America Is Now Supporting Russia

To understand this persistent reliance, one must begin with the foundations of NATO itself. Established in 1949, NATO was, from the outset, a U.S.-led project designed to contain Soviet expansion. The United States was not just one member among many—it was the backbone, offering nuclear protection, logistical support, and technological superiority.

This arrangement solidified during the Cold War, as Western Europe effectively outsourced large portions of its military burden to Washington. The U.S. stationed troops, aircraft, and nuclear weapons across the continent, creating a deterrence umbrella that allowed European nations to scale back on defense spending and focus on economic recovery and integration.

That dependency didn’t fade with the fall of the Berlin Wall. If anything, it became a comfortable status quo. As Europe embraced the “peace dividend” of the 1990s and early 2000s, it doubled down on the belief that large-scale war was obsolete—and that the U.S. would always be there to backstop its security.

Technological and Industrial Gaps

Fast forward to today, and the result is stark: Europe simply cannot match America’s defense capabilities—at least not yet. The U.S. defense industry dwarfs its European counterparts in scale, innovation, and integration. American-made systems like the Patriot missile defense, F-35 stealth fighters, and B61 nuclear bombs remain central to NATO’s deterrent posture.

European defense firms, while capable in niche areas, lack the unified industrial base to replicate this. Fragmentation and competition across national lines—France vs. Germany, Italy vs. Sweden—have prevented the emergence of a coherent European military-industrial complex.

This fragmentation also applies to defense policy. While the European Union has taken steps toward a common defense identity, efforts like the European Defence Fund and PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) remain modest in scope and coordination. Many countries remain more committed to NATO—where the U.S. leads—than to building a self-reliant European force.

Strategic Complacency and Economic Incentives

Another reason for dependence is psychological and economic: it’s simply been easier to let America lead. European leaders have long made a rational calculation—why pour billions into duplicating capabilities that the U.S. already provides?

This logic became entrenched after the Cold War, when many European states drastically reduced their defense budgets. Germany, for example, for years spent far below the NATO-recommended 2% of GDP on defense. The assumption was clear: the U.S. would always be the guardian.

This complacency persisted even in the face of warning signs—from the Iraq War fallout to Trump’s first term in office. His threat to withdraw from NATO, calls for burden-sharing, and open disdain for multilateralism should have triggered alarm bells. And yet, action remained limited.

Russian Aggression: A Wake-Up Call—But Not Enough?

It took Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 to finally jolt Europe into reassessing its military posture. The war exposed not only operational shortcomings—such as munitions shortages and outdated equipment—but also strategic ones.

European militaries quickly realized how dependent they remained on U.S. satellite intelligence, logistics support, and high-end weapons systems. Even now, the war effort in Ukraine is heavily backed by American-supplied hardware, surveillance, and funding.

The Russian threat reaffirmed why American power still matters—but it also raised the question: what happens if that power is withdrawn?

Trump, NATO, and the Politics of Uncertainty

The current fears stem from the very real possibility that a second Trump administration could further decouple from NATO. European leaders are now being forced to consider uncomfortable scenarios: What if the U.S. blocks access to software updates? What if spare parts are delayed for political reasons? What if support for missile shields or nuclear deterrents is frozen?

Officials like France’s Emmanuel Macron have called for an end to Europe’s reliance on American weapons. Germany’s Friedrich Merz has proposed expanding France’s nuclear umbrella to neighboring EU states. Denmark’s Rasmus Jarlov regrets the purchase of American F-35s, calling them a “security risk.” Portugal has already canceled plans to acquire them altogether.

Even UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, traditionally closer to Washington, has acknowledged that Trump “might have a point” about Europe needing to invest more in its own defense.

Despite these calls for autonomy, the road to independence is littered with challenges:

• Political Fragmentation: European defense remains divided by national interests, with little political appetite for surrendering sovereignty to a centralized command.
  
• Industrial Lag: Catching up with U.S. defense tech requires massive investment, years of development, and pan-European cooperation—something the continent has historically struggled with.
  
• Budgetary Constraints: While many nations have pledged to meet NATO spending targets, sustained funding remains uncertain in times of economic pressure and political change.

So, can Europe truly reduce its reliance on America?

Yes—but only if it chooses to. That means increasing defense spending consistently across member states, investing in indigenous technologies, and fostering deep collaboration in procurement and production.

More than anything, it requires a mindset shift: the understanding that security cannot be subcontracted indefinitely. In a multipolar world marked by resurgent authoritarianism and shifting alliances, strategic autonomy is no longer a luxury—it is a necessity.