Europe’s mobilization struggles prime for exploitation

Joseph Stalin is rumored to have once asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” The story goes that the Soviet leader said it during the 1943 Tehran Conference, a turning point in the Second World War. Others attribute it to a different time and place. Nevertheless, it is a statement that carries an undeniable truth about the importance of military might and how Moscow analyses military situations.

The rhetorical question was meant to denigrate anything that is not real power symbolized by armies. There is nothing that can be gained on the front line without material power. In short, military strength is the ultimate determinant during wars and, hence, in the balance of international relations.

A similar question could be asked today: “How many divisions does Europe have?” It is clear that Europe finds itself facing a tricky dilemma. As the old continent contemplates sending troops to stabilize Ukraine, the question of military capability remains central. According to a report in The Times this week, European nations that are part of the “coalition of the willing” are struggling to assemble even a proposed 25,000-strong military force for a potential peacekeeping or deterrence mission in Ukraine, far short of an initially suggested target of 64,000 troops.

The shortfall is attributed to understaffed and underfunded European armies. London, which was pushing for this initiative, has reportedly scaled back its plan to deploy a large number of troops due to high risks and inadequate forces, opting instead to offer limited training missions in western Ukraine, such as near Lviv.

Europe’s struggle to mobilize troops reveals a weakness that will undoubtedly have a direct consequence on Europe’s capacity to shape the geopolitical outcome of the war. This incapacity to align sufficient military resources with the ongoing discussions about supporting a peace deal in Ukraine makes the future of Europe fragile, not only at its borders but also from within. This situation destroys any deterrence capacity.

The harsh reality of the current situation in Ukraine reinforces that hard power is ultimately the only thing that matters

Khaled Abou Zahr

The harsh reality of the current situation in Ukraine reinforces that hard power is ultimately the only thing that matters.

In comparison, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ 2024 “Military Balance” report, Russia has about 1.1 million active troops, including 500,000 in the army, along with 1.5 million reservists. This is despite the heavy losses it has suffered in Ukraine. As of late 2024, 95,000 to 165,000 Russian soldiers had been killed and up to 700,000 injured. Desertions exceed 50,000, reflecting low morale in a force that is still large but is less robust than its Soviet predecessor.

During the Second World War, the Soviet Union lost at least 8.8 million military personnel and suffered 15 to 17 million civilian deaths. There is no doubt that, if it were not for the Eastern Front and these deaths, the war in Europe would have lasted much longer. Now, there is no doubt that even Russia cannot sustain such losses alone and the presence of North Korean soldiers on the front line in Ukraine underlines this. Yet, Moscow’s numbers and, more importantly, its willingness and capacity for sacrifice are still much higher than Europe’s.

The EU’s 27 member states, plus the UK, collectively have about 1.5 million active-duty military personnel, according to estimates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The largest force is Italy’s with 338,000, followed by France with 304,000 and then Spain at 199,000. Germany has 181,000 and Poland about 150,000. Poland is aiming for 300,000 by 2035 and other countries are following the same path. However, as highlighted by the inability to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, many are not combat-ready.

At a time when Europe is looking to build up its deterrence without the US, this is a weak signal that will be exploited. More importantly, internal divisions and a lack of will are making it worse.

Moscow’s numbers and, more importantly, its willingness and capacity for sacrifice are still much higher than Europe’s

Khaled Abou Zahr

Everyone understands that, despite the ruthlessness of the war in Ukraine, there have been guardrails that have prevented it spiraling into a full-blown “anything goes” type of war. Everyone has also noticed the new technologies, such as drones, entering the battlefield. But everyone has also noticed how counter-drone technology has come into effect, how quickly a technological stalemate was reached and how this translated into infantry-heavy combat in trenches reminiscent of the two world wars.

Europe’s troop shortfall puts its easternmost countries in a tough situation, as they are the first line of defense and have smaller armed forces. This is why any decisions that might cause an escalation of the conflict must be carefully considered at this stage. Understanding this reality must ensure a pragmatic and street-smart approach. If Europe cannot mobilize the troops needed for peacekeeping or even agree on the principle, then this is not a deterrence but an invitation. It will need to rebuild this deterrence as soon as possible; this not only applies to troop numbers, but also industrial capacity.

Moreover, this also means that if Europe cannot implement the steps following a ceasefire agreement, it will have even less influence on the outcome of the negotiations. Ukraine demands a complete Russian military withdrawal and the restoration of its 1991 borders, including Crimea, while Moscow insists on recognition of its control over these territories. Ukraine is paying in kind for its position and is showing its will. So, the equation for Europe is simple, either accept what the facts on the ground say or increase its military involvement. In this case, Europe will not only have to boost its divisions, but also its will to sacrifice. This underlines the absolute necessity for a negotiated breakthrough as soon as possible.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.