In testimony before the Defence Committee on 28 January 2025, experts warned of serious gaps in Europe’s defence capabilities, urging the UK to play a more prominent leadership role.
The hearing highlighted weaknesses in logistics, underinvestment in infrastructure, and overreliance on US military assets as key vulnerabilities that could leave Europe exposed.
“The issue, for a number of years, is not just what we refer to as the peace dividend,” said Ed Arnold, Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), “but also the fact that a lot of European nations were spending on the wrong type of equipment for the wrong type of operations.”
Arnold warned that Europe remains “wholly reliant on the US” for key military capabilities like air-to-air refuelling, intelligence, and logistics—assets that could be diverted to the Indo-Pacific in the future. “If you pull the US enablers in terms of logistics away, the Europeans are really going to struggle.” He highlighted mobility challenges, noting that during the Ukraine crisis, “The US could move equipment from mainland US into Europe and Ukraine more quickly than the French could get equipment into Ukraine.”
Gaps in European Defence
The experts identified several critical capability gaps, including:
Military mobility: Europe’s ability to move troops and equipment eastward is hampered by inadequate infrastructure. As Armida van Rij, Head of the Europe Programme at Chatham House, explained, “Germany has not invested in infrastructure in ages, which means that there are too many bridges that cannot support tanks riding over them.”Ammunition shortages: Europe has struggled to maintain sufficient stockpiles. Van Rij noted that although the EU is making efforts to ramp up production, it missed its initial ammunition targets for Ukraine.Air and missile defence: The lack of integrated and well-resourced air defence systems remains a vulnerability across the continent.Strategic Leadership and Nuclear Deterrence
The discussion also focused on the UK’s unique contributions, particularly its leadership within NATO and its nuclear deterrent. Arnold stressed that the UK’s nuclear forces, which are assigned to NATO, provide critical assurance to its allies but are often underappreciated.
“The UK should probably just start every meeting that it is at by explaining [this contribution],” he suggested, highlighting that nearly 40% of the UK’s defence budget is allocated to its nuclear enterprise.
Van Rij agreed but warned that continued investment is crucial. “The nuclear deterrent has to be maintained and supported so it can actually be a deterrent,” she said.
Focus on the High North
Both experts argued that the UK should concentrate its efforts on Arctic and High North operations, where it could provide significant value. “Operating in the Arctic, the environment will kill you before you see the enemy,” said Arnold, underscoring the challenges unique to the region. He described the High North as a natural area of focus for the UK, particularly given its leadership role in the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a key complement to NATO operations.
UK-EU Collaboration
With the US gradually shifting its strategic priorities, both witnesses emphasised the importance of closer collaboration between the UK and the EU, particularly in defence industrial development. Van Rij argued that a UK-EU security pact should prioritise industrial cooperation over other areas. “For me, the most essential piece is defence industrial cooperation between the UK and the EU. Anything else, in my view, is a nice-to-have.”
Arnold shared her perspective but expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of certain EU mechanisms. “I’m sceptical of the value the UK could get out of a lot of those PESCO projects,” he said, referring to the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative.
He suggested that the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) offers more practical opportunities for joint development.