Medtem ko se evropski “voditelji” junačijo, kako se bodo oborožili in kako bodo preprečili Trumpu doseči mirno rešitev vojne v Ukrajini in kako bodo lastnoročno brez ameriške pomoči branili Ukrajino pred Rusijo tudi z napotitvijo svoje vojske in letalske flote v Ukrajino, pa Bloomberg prinaša nekaj grenkih resnic o vojaški sposobnosti držav EU. Prva je ta, da so evropska skladišča orožja na kritični meji. V primeru – hipotetično – ruskega napada na Evropo, bi se evropska obramba sesula v nekaj tednih. Druga pa je, da brez ameriške zaščite in brez ameriške satelitske navigacije (GPS, Starlink) ter brez ameriških obveščevalnih podatkov evropska letala in rakete v Ukrajini ne morejo delovati.

Junačenje s fračami in praznimi žepi in streljanje odločnih govorov se morda komu zdi zabavno, vemo pa, kako se to konča v realnem življenju.

____________

If attacked, Europe’s ammunition stockpiles could run low within days and rearming will take years.

Lacking troops, air defenses and ammunition, the continent’s front-line defenses are only equipped to repel an invasion from Russia for weeks at best without the US, according to defense officials, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive information. Even if a complete American withdrawal is seen as extremely remote, a reduced US presence would also have an impact.

Within NATO, Europe is reliant on the US for communications, intelligence and logistics as well as strategic military leadership and firepower. Contingency planning is ongoing for the unlikely scenario in which the US does turn its back on the alliance and pulls all troops out of Europe.

The continent largely disarmed after the Cold War and saw Russia as a basket case and then a trading partner. Even after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Europe’s leaders struggled to pivot. It’s only in recent years that Europe’s NATO members have come to terms with the threat posed by Moscow.

Trump’s return to the White House has heightened Europe’s alarm. The US president has shown little concern about Russian aggression and has decided to halt US arms supplies to Ukraine, stopped providing some intelligence to Kyiv’s forces and rejected American troops taking part in a mission to keep a peace deal he’s seeking to broker with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

…

The whole effort is expected to eventually need hundreds of billions of euros more. But after years of underinvestment and decades of reliance on the US, more than money is required to shore up Europe’s security. Replacing the array of support that the US provides — from logistics and intelligence to weapons systems — could take more than five years, the people said.

Precise data on Europe’s capabilities and stockpiles are closely held. But behind the scenes, defense officials warn that in extreme scenarios the region’s inventories of aircraft missiles could quickly start to run short without the US, according to some estimates. Ammunition may run low within days and air defenses would be unable to provide sufficient cover for ground operations.

Despite three years of war in Europe, the continent still lacks basics like sufficient production capacity for gunpowder. That means gearing up mainly involves buying from the US.

…

“We are vitally bound to the US, there is no question about that,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys told reporters on Monday. “It is a fairly simple and easy way to deter Russia, to avoid bigger problems.”

The Baltic nation — a potential Kremlin target alongside Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Poland — has been seeking to lobby for more American troops on top of the existing 1,000 already stationed there, a sign of Europe’s enduring reliance on the US despite Trump’s rhetoric.

…

Europe would struggle to manage a defensive operation on its own. The US operates 17 sophisticated spy planes — packed with equipment to detect enemy radio, radar and communications — while the UK only has three.

Other European countries currently only operate smaller twin-engine reconnaissance planes, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Germany has ordered three new surveillance planes from Canada’s Bombardier Inc., but they won’t be in the air until 2028.

…

Europe’s security weakness has been decades in the making. After the fall of the Iron Curtain and NATO’s expansion to the east in the 1990s, most countries embraced the opportunity to cut military budgets.

Over the past 30 years, core European NATO members have reduced the number of active troops by nearly 50%. In addition to combat-ready personnel, the shortages extend to the brain trust of senior officers, planners and strategists.

Spread out over more than two dozen countries from Greece to Iceland, the continent’s NATO members have about 1.5 million active military personnel, according to data from IISS. By comparison, Ukraine alone has 730,000.

…

“When peace eventually comes, the front line in Ukraine will be unbelievably long,” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. “The idea that there will be a single line with European soldiers guarding every centimeter is simply not realistic.”

European officials estimate that at least 30,000 soldiers would be needed to monitor a peace deal in Ukraine, but that would be difficult to muster and instead the prospective contingent would be little more than tripwire for Russia, the people said.

…

The European Court of Auditors warned last month that logistical obstacles could bog down defensive efforts because of a lack of centralized oversight. Moving tanks from one member state to another would encounter national weight regulations and might need to take long detours because of rickety bridges, according to a report.

The Baltics are particularly vulnerable to supply issues. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia still use Soviet gauge rails, which means European trains can only get as far as the border with Poland. That makes sea lanes critical for delivering equipment and reinforcements in the event of an attack, but resources aren’t yet in place.

“Europe could in theory step in to cover the financial gap left by the US. The problem is not one of magnitude. Rather, the biggest challenges would be taking decisions fast enough and replacing US support in key tactical areas.”

Vir: Bloomberg