All allies are not created equal. Depth of loyalty, shared worldview, military resources, economic strength – they all matter, and depending on the moment in history, not every aspect counts to the same degree. Right now, Ukraine is heavily reliant on a set of sophisticated weapons systems that only the United States can provide, which makes president Trump’s repeated threats to abandon the nation’s cause that much more dire.
Wars are won and lost based on the ability to both defend oneself and to wage an effective offence. Ukraine shocked the world when it stopped Vladimir Putin’s army in early 2022, based in part on its fighting spirit. Yet three years on, the practical reality of securing supply lines and acquiring effective weapons has taken on an overwhelming importance.
British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, took an important first step this week in setting out plans to increase UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP. His move comes amid the glaring realisation that the United States is reconsidering its commitments to Nato, an alliance which has served as the bedrock of Western security since 1949.
Europe’s key enemy, then, as now, was Russia. After holding the line against the Soviet menace – US president Ronald Reagan rightly called it the “Evil Empire” – and then against Putin in his earlier years, US resolve began to wane, and with it Nato’s ability to deter the Kremlin’s aggression. Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 and the world did almost nothing.
Yet the past two weeks have seen a startling capitulation to Putin. The Trump administration has blamed Ukraine for starting the war, initiated “peace talks” with Russia without inviting either Ukraine or its European allies to the table, and even voted with Russia to reject a UN resolution that named Russia as the aggressor.
Nato is entering uncharted territory, and its members are right to be thinking about a long-term vision for their security without the US around to do most of the lifting. Starmer’s move should be followed by other Continental leaders, and there is still time for them to bolster their military prowess while Russia remains bogged down.
Yet Ukraine faces a critical problem today. The US military industrial complex, much derided by opponents of high defence spending and interventionist policies, makes some of the best weapons in the world. Patriot missile systems can protect Ukrainian cities and the rear guard of their armed forces. The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) allows Ukraine to take the fight to the enemy, striking deep behind Russian lines to disrupt weapons manufacturing centres and communications. Without these and other US armaments, Ukraine risks being overwhelmed.
The United States is a superpower for several reasons, and its commitments to strong defence – its own and that of its allies – have held for decades. But as it takes a more isolationist turn under Trump, the alliances that Washington underpins must prepare to go it alone. Over the long term, the UK and its European allies will need to compensate for an American pullback.
But even a massive increase in aid to Ukraine from other Nato countries – money, artillery shells, personnel carriers – may not be able to mitigate the loss of sophistication provided by American technology and manufacturing. If Ukraine loses in this epic struggle, Russia will be on Europe’s doorstep, which raises the big question: will Nato be ready?
Charley Cooper is a former senior advisor at the US Departments of Justice and Defence
All allies are not created equal. Depth of loyalty, shared worldview, military resources, economic strength – they all matter, and depending on the moment in history, not every aspect counts to the same degree. Right now, Ukraine is heavily reliant on a set of sophisticated weapons systems that only the United States can provide, which makes president Trump’s repeated threats to abandon the nation’s cause that much more dire.
Wars are won and lost based on the ability to both defend oneself and to wage an effective offence. Ukraine shocked the world when it stopped Vladimir Putin’s army in early 2022, based in part on its fighting spirit. Yet three years on, the practical reality of securing supply lines and acquiring effective weapons has taken on an overwhelming importance.
British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, took an important first step this week in setting out plans to increase UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP. His move comes amid the glaring realisation that the United States is reconsidering its commitments to Nato, an alliance which has served as the bedrock of Western security since 1949.
Europe’s key enemy, then, as now, was Russia. After holding the line against the Soviet menace – US president Ronald Reagan rightly called it the “Evil Empire” – and then against Putin in his earlier years, US resolve began to wane, and with it Nato’s ability to deter the Kremlin’s aggression. Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 and the world did almost nothing.
Yet the past two weeks have seen a startling capitulation to Putin. The Trump administration has blamed Ukraine for starting the war, initiated “peace talks” with Russia without inviting either Ukraine or its European allies to the table, and even voted with Russia to reject a UN resolution that named Russia as the aggressor.
Nato is entering uncharted territory, and its members are right to be thinking about a long-term vision for their security without the US around to do most of the lifting. Starmer’s move should be followed by other Continental leaders, and there is still time for them to bolster their military prowess while Russia remains bogged down.
Yet Ukraine faces a critical problem today. The US military industrial complex, much derided by opponents of high defence spending and interventionist policies, makes some of the best weapons in the world. Patriot missile systems can protect Ukrainian cities and the rear guard of their armed forces. The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) allows Ukraine to take the fight to the enemy, striking deep behind Russian lines to disrupt weapons manufacturing centres and communications. Without these and other US armaments, Ukraine risks being overwhelmed.
The United States is a superpower for several reasons, and its commitments to strong defence – its own and that of its allies – have held for decades. But as it takes a more isolationist turn under Trump, the alliances that Washington underpins must prepare to go it alone. Over the long term, the UK and its European allies will need to compensate for an American pullback.
But even a massive increase in aid to Ukraine from other Nato countries – money, artillery shells, personnel carriers – may not be able to mitigate the loss of sophistication provided by American technology and manufacturing. If Ukraine loses in this epic struggle, Russia will be on Europe’s doorstep, which raises the big question: will Nato be ready?
Charley Cooper is a former senior advisor at the US Departments of Justice and Defence