It's time for Europe to step in decisively! A dangerous hole is emerging in Ukraine's defense

Allies are not the same. Loyalty, a shared worldview, military resources, economic power - they all matter, and depending on the historical moment, not every aspect is equally important. Ukraine is currently heavily dependent on a set of sophisticated weapons systems that only the United States can provide, which makes President Trump's repeated threats to abandon the country's cause all the more frightening, writes Charlie Cooper, a former senior adviser to the US Departments of Justice and Defense, in an article for the British newspaper Telegraph.

"Focus" presents a translation of the material without editorial intervention

Wars are won and lost based on the ability to both defend and conduct an effective attack. Ukraine shocked the world when it stopped Vladimir Putin’s army in early 2022, partly on the basis of its fighting spirit. Yet three years later, the practical realities of securing supply lines and acquiring effective weapons have taken on enormous importance.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer took an important first step this week, setting out plans to increase the UK’s defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The move comes amid a clear realisation that the United States is reconsidering its commitment to NATO, an alliance that has served as the bedrock of Western security since 1949.

Then, as now, Europe’s main enemy was Russia. Having faced the Soviet threat – US President Ronald Reagan rightly called it the “evil empire” – and then Putin in his early years, US resolve began to wane, and with it NATO’s ability to deter Kremlin aggression. In 2014, Putin invaded Crimea and the world did little.

Yet the past two weeks have seen a stunning capitulation to Putin. The Trump administration has accused Ukraine of starting the war, begun “peace talks” with Russia without inviting either Ukraine or its European allies to the negotiating 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 think about a long-term vision for their security without the US around to do most of the work. Starmer’s move should be followed by other leaders on the continent, and there is still time for them to build up their military might while Russia remains stagnant.

Yet Ukraine today faces a critical problem. The US military-industrial complex, which is derided by opponents of high defense spending and interventionist policies, produces some of the best weapons in the world. Patriot missile systems can protect Ukrainian cities and the rear of its armed forces. The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) allows Ukraine to fight the enemy, striking deep behind Russian lines to destroy weapons production centers and communications. Without these and other American weapons, Ukraine risks being overwhelmed.

The United States is a superpower for several reasons, and its commitment to strong defense – its own and that of its allies – has been maintained for decades. But as Trump takes a more isolationist turn, the alliances that Washington supports must prepare to act independently. In the long term, the UK and its European allies will have to compensate for the American withdrawal.

But even a massive increase in aid to Ukraine from other NATO countries – money, artillery shells, armored personnel carriers – may not be able to mitigate the loss of sophistication provided by American technology and manufacturing. If Ukraine loses this epic battle, Russia will be on Europe’s doorstep, raising the big question: will NATO be ready?