Europe Could “Outgun” Russia Without U.S. Support, Says Security Expert

Donald Trump has come under fire from a prominent security expert who asserts that Europe possesses sufficient military capability to counter Russia without American assistance.

Professor Anthony Glees delivered a sharp rebuke to the U.S. President, urging the UK and its European neighbors to recognize their collective strength rather than “whingeing” about potential U.S. disengagement from NATO. His comments come amid reports that the Trump administration is considering withdrawing American troops from NATO countries that haven’t supported U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran.

“Trump could not be more wrong about NATO. And he could not be more wrong about the armed might of Canada and NATO’s European partners,” Glees told the Daily Star in a pointed critique of the President’s understanding of the alliance’s purpose.

The security expert emphasized a fundamental misunderstanding in Trump’s approach to NATO. “I don’t even think he understands the basic point that NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. His and Netanyahu’s war is an offensive war, and a war of choice. NATO doesn’t come into it.”

Trump has repeatedly characterized NATO as a “paper tiger” and threatened to abandon the 32-member alliance because European leaders haven’t fully backed ongoing military operations in the Middle East. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced this position, claiming NATO members had “turned their backs” on the American people.

Professor Glees countered these assertions with economic data highlighting Europe’s substantial resources. Despite Russia’s vast territory, its economy generates only $2.17 trillion in GDP, whereas a united Europe—including the UK and Ukraine—commands a combined GDP of approximately $21 trillion, nearly ten times larger.

“We are massively strong without the USA, we need to stop whingeing and talking ourselves down,” Glees argued. “If Europe gets its act together and it does seem to be doing so, we can outpace and outgun Russia by every single measure that counts.”

The professor also challenged perceptions of Russian military might, noting that despite its 1.5 million military personnel, Russia has suffered over a million casualties in its Ukraine campaign. “They are not ten feet tall and in many cases poor war fighters,” he said.

This debate unfolds against the backdrop of escalating tensions in the Middle East. Despite Trump announcing a two-week ceasefire on April 7, the region has descended into further conflict. Kuwait and the UAE have recently experienced missile and drone attacks, while Israel continues military operations in Lebanon.

According to some reports, the Trump administration is considering relocating U.S. troops from NATO countries that declined to participate in Middle Eastern operations to nations deemed more “cooperative.” This potential realignment raises significant questions about the future of transatlantic security arrangements.

Professor Glees suggested that a united European security pact could ultimately reverse the power dynamic, with Americans eventually seeking to rejoin a strengthened European alliance. He also pointed out the geographic reality that Russia lies less than 55 miles from Alaska, dismissing Trump’s assertion that a “great beautiful ocean” provides natural protection for the United States.

The dispute highlights fundamental differences in understanding NATO’s purpose and the nature of transatlantic security relationships. While the Trump administration appears to view the alliance as a potential instrument for supporting U.S. foreign policy objectives worldwide, traditional NATO doctrine emphasizes its role as a collective defense mechanism against territorial aggression in Europe.

As these tensions continue to unfold, European leaders face increasing pressure to evaluate their security capabilities and consider pathways toward greater strategic autonomy, regardless of U.S. involvement.