Europe wants to stand on its own two feet militarily. Is it too little, too late?

As Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz broke ground on a new munitions factory this week, he celebrated a move that should allow the country to restore its nearly depleted arsenal of artillery shells.

But despite its portrayal of the epochal event as yet another German response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which began two years ago this month, it was also a reminder of how slow the European response has been. It will take a year for the new factory to produce 50,000 units annually, with the hope of doubling that by 2026.

That's too little, too late to help Ukraine at a time when the need is greatest, and just as Washington's own aid package could falter. And it is arguably late for Europe as a whole, as leaders warn that if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia were to succeed in taking and holding even part of Ukraine, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could seek to force NATO's deployment to test every inch of its territory to defend the world. coming years.

These realities and new doubts about Ukraine's long-term strategy will all play a role in debates among its allies this week, first among NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday and Thursday, and then at the opening of the annual Security Conference Munich.

Last year's conference discussed whether Ukraine was on the verge of great success and whether it could restore the borders that existed two years ago. This year, President Volodymyr Zelensky will appear before the group for the first time since the invasion of his country.

He will undoubtedly beg his Western supporters – especially Europe – for the artillery, air defenses and drones that Ukraine needs to maintain the current frontlines in a brutal war of attrition.

This is not where Western allies thought they would be when they gathered back in Munich. Ukraine's long-awaited “counteroffensive” failed to break line after line of Russian trenches and mines, and continued surveillance by drones destroyed any hope of surprise attacks, Ukrainian generals said.

Instead, as Russia and its allies produce vast quantities of shells, tanks and drones, Ukraine finds itself on the defensive, rationing its artillery shells and scrounging global arms markets for remaining supplies.

Even as the Senate passed a $60 billion aid package for Ukraine on Tuesday, House approval is in doubt, and top European defense officials say their own arsenals have been depleted to such dangerously low levels that there is very little left to give . .

Hanging over everything is the American presidential election, the consequences of which are still being felt today.

Former President Donald J. Trump's statement Saturday that he would tell the Russians to “do whatever they want” toward allies who do not spend enough on the military made headlines across Europe. It was an unprecedented attack on the alliance's solidarity and sent shock waves among its leaders.

At a joint press conference in Berlin with Poland's new Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Mr Scholz said on Monday: “NATO's pledge of protection applies without reservation. All for one, one for all.”

Mr. Scholz did not mention Mr. Trump's name but said he was “absolutely certain” that NATO was critical to transatlantic security. “We adhere to this, the President of the United States adheres to this and I am sure the American people will do the same,” the German leader said hopefully.

“Let me be clear on this occasion,” he said. “Any downplaying of NATO's guarantee of aid is irresponsible and dangerous and is solely in Russia's interest. No one is allowed to play games or make deals with European security. We will strengthen NATO for the security of Europe.”

Mr Tusk said Mr Trump's words were “a cold shower” and pointed out that Poland spends 4 percent of its economic output on defense. “We in Europe must clearly expect our partners, including those across the ocean, to respect this principle.”

On the social platform X he was even more blunt. “Dear Republican Senators of America,” Mr. Tusk wrote, “Ronald Reagan, who helped millions of us regain our freedom and independence, must be rolling in his grave today. You should be ashamed.”

So the theme of this year's Munich conference – “lose-lose” – seems to sum up Europe's growing concerns as it opens on Friday. European leaders are concerned about Mr. Trump's unpredictability and his apparent willingness to make deals with Mr. Putin without involving Ukraine or its neighbors.

But they also realize that even if Trump loses, the days of large aid and arms packages for Ukraine sailing through Congress are likely over — and the era of a rock-solid American security guarantee may be over as well.

That means that Europe, whose future obligations to Ukraine already exceed Washington's, will likely have to spend much more on its own defense and prepare for the possibility of a reduced U.S. role in NATO.

But there is little prospect of Europe replacing the United States as guarantor of security in the short term – and not without greatly increased military spending beyond NATO's target of 2 percent of economic output, which only 11 out of 31 members of the alliance currently comply.

That deficit is a source of Mr. Trump's criticism. But Europeans suspect that his long-standing admiration for Putin and his disdain for Ukraine are at the heart of this.

On Wednesday, NATO announced that 18 countries will achieve the 2 percent target this year.

Yet numbers only tell part of the story. Europe's ultimate defense is the US nuclear arsenal, including weapons stockpiled from Germany to Turkey, but it is pointless if there are doubts that the United States will actually come to the aid of even the smallest and most vulnerable NATO countries.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg appeared to acknowledge the damage already done, saying on Sunday: “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all our security, including that of the US, and puts the US and European soldiers are at increased risk.”

And right now, says Claudia Major, a defense expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Europe could not defend itself against Russia in a conventional conflict without help from the United States.

To be truly prepared for the fight against Russia, says Armin Papperger, the CEO of the company building the munitions factory, Europe would need ten years to rebuild the armies that withered during the post-Cold War and whose arsenals were depleted in the rush to save Ukraine. .

But even to be “good”, he told the BBC, would require three or four years of increased military spending and production.

Estonia's Prime Minister Kaja Kallas — who was just declared a “wanted” criminal by Russia — said Trump's comments were “something to maybe wake up some allies who haven't done as much.”

What Mr. Trump has accomplished is essentially accelerating the discussion about what NATO would look like without the United States at the center.

Annalena Baerbock, Germany's foreign minister, met near Paris on Monday with her Polish and French counterparts, Radoslaw Sikorski and Stéphane Séjourné, in a revival of what is sometimes called the “Weimard Triangle.”

In a joint statementthe three reflected the European mood well and said the meeting took place at a time of 'ambiguity, unpredictability, uncertainty and instability'.

Although creating more security and stability will require much more money, NATO is still debating whether to set a new, higher goal.

That makes a common European defense still an aspiration, says Daniel Fiott of the Brussels School of Governance. “Sentiment is not enough” for Europeans, he said. “Otherwise they remain at the level of a think tank. Action, real action please!”