[...]
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:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leszek_Balcerowicz#BELLS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Trichet#Controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Monti#Labour_market_reforms
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: