How NATO Without US Stacks Up Against Russia

Germany's likely next leader, Friedrich Merz, didn't mince words when he said it was his "absolute priority" to "achieve independence" for Europe from the United States.

The remarks, which stunned many last month, were one of the clearest demonstrations of the shock reverberating through NATO's European members and Canada as U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration turned on their heel, striding away from the continent America has propped up for decades.

Europe and America's northern neighbor are now scrambling to work out how vulnerable the rest of NATO really is, and whether it can take on Russia without the steadfast support the U.S. has always provided to its fellow member states.

The White House has publicly said it is refocusing its attention on the Indo-Pacific, but it has also steered toward a rapprochement with Russia that has left many in NATO horrified.

"On paper, the military strength of European NATO matches up quite well with the Russians across domains, but this on-paper strength is deceptive," said William Freer, research fellow in national security at the United Kingdom-based Council on Geostrategy.

European fighting strategy within NATO hinges on enablers, which the U.S. has long provided for the continent, Freer told Newsweek. "Enablers" refers to capabilities like reconnaissance, intelligence, air-to-air refueling and logistics.

NATO states on the continent have scant exposure to operating without the U.S., Freer added, not to mention they are likely to have trouble quickly get forces in place wherever needed, and to replenish losses in a combat scenario. Canada, while an integral part of America's air defense umbrella, is still one of the increasingly few NATO nations to not have met the 2 percent GDP target for defense spending.

In the Air

One of Europe's strongest suits is airpower. "You don't have the land or naval forces to do this," a U.S. military official told Newsweek, referring to a possible confrontation with Russia. But "you have the air forces, at least."

Subtracting American airpower does leave a real dent in NATO's air forces, but they are still "more advanced, more capable [and] better trained" than Russia's, said retired Air Marshal Greg Bagwell, former senior commander in the U.K.'s Royal Air Force.

"So it isn't just a numbers game," he told Newsweek. Western air forces without the U.S. are broadly able to hold their own, Bagwell added.

European NATO states operate various models of advanced fighter jets, including French-made Rafale jets, Swedish Gripens and the Eurofighter Typhoon. They are generally seen as interoperable, able to quite easily work together. Canada's air force is small but "capable," Bagwell said.

But the U.S. accounts for "over half" of all of NATO's fighter jets and ground-attack aircraft, noted Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace with the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a prominent British think tank, in a recent commentary. Roughly half the aircraft remaining, he said, are American-made.

American F-16s had been dominant in Europe but have been phased out in many countries in favor of the U.S. defense giant's F-35 stealth fighter. Twenty countries have committed to flying the fifth-generation F-35s, 12 of which are European NATO members, although several have not yet received the advanced jets.

The U.K.'s Royal Air Force at the moment has 159 fighter and ground-attack aircraft, including 32 Lockheed Martin-made F-35Bs, according to the IISS Military Balance 2025, a comprehensive count of the world's military forces.

Italy's air force already operates 195 combat-capable aircraft, including 24 F-35As and two F-35Bs, according to the IISS, while the Netherlands has 40 combat-capable fighter aircraft, all of which are F-35As. Canada has 89 ground-attack aircraft to contribute.

The U.S.-made aircraft "are backed up with substantial numbers of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons," Barrie said.

There are deep concerns over whether European NATO states have enough air-launched weapons, and how quickly Europe-based defense companies can fill in empty spaces in a wartime scenario, he said.

"Europe on its own would struggle to win air superiority against Russian forces," which have very strong ground-based air defense systems to threaten NATO aircraft, Justin Bronk, airpower expert from the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank, evaluated in August 2024.

The U.S. is dominant in providing ground-based air defense systems like the vaunted Patriot, which has been in short supply in Europe. "Europe's going to have to step up quite quickly and find things that can plug some of those gaps," Bagwell said.

"The problem is not that solutions are not available, but rather that no European member states have yet invested in the necessary combination of suitable aircraft, weapons, specialist training and enablers, although some are making progress in this area," Bronk said.

Europe's NATO members have "far fewer" tankers to provide air-to-air refueling capabilities than the U.S. Air Force, Barrie said.

Europe has long-term programs like the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a joint venture between the U.K., Italy and Japan to deliver sixth-generation fighter jets due to come into service in 10 years' time. There is some debate over the future of program, not least as the U.K. nears the end of its Strategic Defence Review.

But "there are no other real alternatives outside America that provide that level of stealth" afforded by the fifth-generation F-35s in the meantime, Bagwell said. While stealth is "less and less important these days," he said, there are limited options for non-American fifth-generation capabilities.

The rest of NATO could use fourth-generation aircraft long in service "and still be more than a match for Russia through a variety of different techniques," Bagwell commented, should commitment to F-35s waver.

Russia's air force does bear the scars of more than three years of war in Ukraine, and its combat aircraft have long been prized targets for Kyiv's air defenses. But Moscow's air power has emerged relatively unscathed from its invasion, because "most of the tactical air force has not been committed to this fight" in Ukraine, U.S. Army General Christopher Cavoli, head of the U.S. European Command, told the Atlantic Council in October.

Although generally painted as having underperformed in Ukraine, Russia's air force would still be formidable. Russia has 449 fighter and ground-attack aircraft, including the Su-34s that have been used extensively against Ukraine and a handful of Su-57 stealth jets, which have been largely kept away from the war. Moscow also has another 220 fighter aircraft and 262 attack jets, according to the IISS.

On Land

The war in Ukraine has hit Russia's land forces hard. The IISS said last month it believed Moscow had lost 1,400 of its main battle tanks in 2024, plus more than 3,700 other armored vehicles.

In total, the think tank said, Russia has lost roughly 14,000 tanks and armored vehicles since February 2022 in what it described as "staggering numbers." Dutch investigative outlet Oryx, which catalogs visually verified losses, said that Moscow had lost at least 3,786 tanks.

Russia has relied on Soviet-era equipment, pulling old tanks from storage and even from museums and tweaking the vehicles wherever possible. The IISS said Russia refurbished and built more than 1,500 main battle tanks, and 2,800 armored vehicles in 2024. But the Cold War stocks are finite, slowly being exhausted.

"The remaining equipment in store could allow Russia to sustain the current rate of loss in the short term, but a significant number of these platforms would require deep and costly refurbishment," the IISS said. But even once it burns through its old stocks, the think tank argued, Russia would likely still be able to build back its numbers in the medium and long term.

Estimates from the U.K. government in early 2024 suggested Russia was able to pump out around 100 new tanks each year. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in February 2024 that domestic tank production had grown fivefold in two years, although Western experts cast doubt over whether the tanks rolling off these production lines are up to scratch.

According to the IISS figures, Russia has 2,730 main battle tanks, from the old T-55s to the updated T-80s, although the oldest models are likely to be in storage. It also has nearly 3,000 more in various stages of readiness in stocks, the think tank said.

The U.K., France, Italy and Germany combined have fewer than 900 main battle tanks of various types, the IISS data indicates. Poland, which has stormed ahead with its defense spending, has more than 660 main battle tanks, while Greece's stockpiles approach 1,400. Romania, which shares chunks of border with Ukraine, has roughly 377 main battle tanks. Canada has just 74 main battle tanks, according to the IISS numbers.

Europe has pledged many of its existing tanks to Kyiv's war effort. Germany's government has said Berlin has delivered to Ukraine 140 of its Marder infantry fighting vehicles, 66 armored personnel carriers and more than 100 Leopard 1 tanks as part of a joint project with Denmark. Germany has also sent a handful of the more modern Leopard 2 tanks.

The European Union appears committed to yanking up defense spending and investment in continental NATO's industry, rather than relying on the U.S. powerhouse military-industrial complex. Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, unveiled earlier this month a plan she called "rearm Europe," crafted to funnel into defense across the bloc.

Also thrown into the mix are problems, particularly in Western Europe and the U.K., in keeping the numbers of its personnel up.

Naval Power

Russia's navy is huge, made up of four major fleets plus its Caspian Sea Flotilla. Only one, the Black Sea Fleet, has been significantly impacted by the Ukraine war.

Moscow has access, largely through the Northern Fleet, to an estimated 51 submarines, including 12 ballistic missile submarines and 10 guided missile submarines. While Russia's surface fleet of ships is less impressive and counts just one currently nonoperational aircraft carrier among its ships, the Kremlin wields a daunting undersea fleet.

"Russia's main asset is its nuclear submarine force," said Frederik Mertens, a strategic analyst at Dutch research organization TNO. Although few, Moscow's new Yasen-class guided-missile submarines "are very dangerous boats," Mertens told Newsweek.

"They are quiet, fast, well-armed, and will be manned by the cream of the Russian fleet," Mertens said. "Luckily, there are only a few of them, and most of Russia's submarine fleet consists of ever more outmoded Cold War-era boats."

Russia also historically built many of its Soviet-era ships in Ukraine and has not pieced back together the navy infrastructure it had under the USSR—although, again, the nuclear submarine fleet stands apart, Mertens said.

America's navy, while stretched, has a global footprint and 65 submarines of various classes, all of which are nuclear-powered, plus 11 aircraft carriers.

"America can turn out a lot more ships than any one European nation," Bagwell said, although concerns have been raised about America's own ability to churn out and maintain ships and submarines.

Europe combined, however, may find a way to drum up the necessary capabilities, Bagwell suggested.

European NATO states typically have a handful of submarines of differing types—Germany and Norway have six apiece; Greece has 10; Italy has eight; Poland has one; Sweden has four; and the Netherlands has three. Canada has four submarines. There are several different types of submarines that fulfill different roles.

There are also unanswered questions about how naval aviation and ground-based missile systems close to a shoreline would impact any possible battle, particularly if they're fought in the seas surrounding Europe and away from Russian soil.

It's not clear how quickly and easily Russia would be able to get its submarines and surface ships to a given location to square off against hypothetical NATO forces.

The U.K. and France are the only NATO members outside of the U.S. with nuclear weapons, most of which are submarine-launched. France's navy has four ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear warheads, and the U.K. has 10 submarines, four of which carry nuclear-armed missiles.

London is developing the Dreadnought class of submarines, to replace the Vanguard subs at the moment tasked with the country's nuclear deterrent, in the early 2030s. But there are "longstanding concerns over maintenance and availability of the [British] submarine fleet, along with manpower and skills shortages in the submarine service," a U.K. parliamentary research document noted earlier this year.

"Just as the U.K. cannot operate all its warships at the same time, as reparations, upgrades, maintenance, and training all demand time, the Russians face the same issue," Mertens said.

"With the USA focusing on the Pacific, it will be up to Europe to keep its neighbouring seas under control," Mertens added. "And with the naval strength we have today, that will be a very difficult task indeed."

Nuclear

Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, just outstripping the U.S. Collectively, Moscow and Washington control roughly 90 percent of global nuclear weapons, split around strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.

British and French nuclear weapons amount to a fraction of Russia's stockpile at under 300 warheads each. It is also not clear under which circumstances London and Paris would use their nuclear weapons to defend NATO's Article 5, as Washington's nuclear weapons have historically acted as the main deterrent.

"Ultimately, the most powerful capability available to European NATO is the nuclear arsenal of the UK; this provides an incredibly powerful deterrent to Russian aggression towards any European NATO member," Freer said.

The British government touts its nuclear deterrent, a long-debated program dubbed Trident, as entirely independent.

"Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it, of course, is absolutely not," Hans Kristensen, from U.S. think tank Federation of American Scientists, told British newspaper The Guardian in recent days. "It may be that Britain can fire weapons independently of the US, but below that, the entire infrastructure covering missile compartments on submarines, the missiles themselves, all are supplied by the Americans," Kristensen added.

French President Emmanuel Macron has floated extending the protection of Paris' nuclear weapons to the rest of Europe, a prospect welcomed by Poland and NATO's Baltic States but slammed by the Kremlin as "extremely confrontational."

Germany's Merz, speaking to German media on Sunday, said the "sharing of nuclear weapons is an issue we need to talk about," but the rest of NATO should not lose America's nuclear protection.

"The changed global security situation now necessitates that we Europeans discuss this matter together," Merz added.

Update 3/11/25, 12:41 p.m. ET: This article was updated with comment from Frederik Mertens and additional information.