Victory over Russia without U.S. support: how Ukraine will fight under Trump's leadership.
How much can we manage without the USA?
In short:
- If the EU allocates sufficient funds to us, the effects of Washington's démarches will be noticeable but not critical.
- European military solutions are largely more aligned with the requirements of the Russia-Ukraine war.
When it comes to the foundation of our warfare—drones—we primarily produce them ourselves. Components from the USA are used sporadically and largely have analogs in other countries.
Even when considering the premium segment of expensive reconnaissance drones, European manufacturers dominate American ones in supply and adapt very flexibly to the current war.
Of course, American communication equipment produced by Silvus is considered the best in the world in its segments, but it is used, as a costly solution, quite limitedly. And it is not without competitors.
The most significant asset that the USA has for drones is "Starlink." However, there have been no indications from the United States regarding any hostile actions towards Ukraine, so the forced shutdown of "Starlink" for Ukrainians is not currently on the table (for now!). Nevertheless, this possibility should be considered now, and work should be actively pursued to find alternatives.
Based on the current sentiments in Capitol Hill, the USA seems to want to partially emulate China in this war: selling defense solutions for money and maximizing short-term material gain. The key is that the USA does not start playing on Moscow's side, as has often happened in the past.
Thus, if the USA does not shift from a policy of disengagement from the conflict to openly pressuring Ukraine in the interests of the Russian Federation, the domestic drone industry will be able to continue functioning, and unmanned systems will obtain what they need.
Regarding "classic" weapons, I believe Europe is ahead of the USA in terms of armored vehicles and artillery. The Bradley IFV is a great machine, but the Swedish CV-90 is just as good, if not better in many aspects. The same applies when comparing the Abrams and the Leopard.
The types of armored personnel carriers that Europeans have are simply not available to the USA. There are no self-propelled mortar systems with automatic targeting like those available to Europeans. Most of the NATO-caliber 155 mm self-propelled guns are also not American-made.
Some may argue that this is not as significant as it once was—traditional weapons are taking a back seat. Statistics from various sectors show that most defeats are inflicted by drones.
However, the evolution of warfare does not stop, and it is possible that in the coming years, anti-drone systems could bring the good old tanks, IFVs, and APCs back to the battlefield in mass.
In fact, the leading manufacturers of such equipment are European and Israeli companies, whose products have already become the gold standard at the front.
The question remains open as to whether Ukraine will be able to continue obtaining (for a price) excellent missile systems like Himars or their analogs from the EU. Additionally, will Europeans be able to continue transferring American weapons to us, such as Patriot systems and similar ones?
The loss of the USA as a source of weapons for us would be significant but not critical. We can fight without the USA and even achieve victory, provided that Europe remains proactive.
The author expresses a personal opinion that may not align with the editorial position. The responsibility for the published data in the "Opinions" section lies with the author.