In an era of geopolitical upheaval, Germany is racing to forge Europe’s strongest conventional army for the first time since World War II. This ambitious push comes against a backdrop of Russian aggression in Ukraine and escalating US pressures under President Donald Trump, often described as “blackmail” through tariffs, territorial demands, and alliance threats. But is bolstering military might the ultimate counter to what many Europeans see as coercive US tactics?
As of January 2026, with Trump’s second term underway, transatlantic relations are strained like never before. Germany’s defense overhaul—fueled by a €108 billion ($125 billion) budget this year—signals a shift toward strategic autonomy. Yet, critics argue it could escalate tensions rather than resolve them.
Germany’s Military Revival: From Pacifism to Powerhouse
Germany’s Bundeswehr is undergoing a dramatic transformation, aiming to become the continent’s most formidable conventional force. As reported by Al Jazeera, active duty personnel reached 184,000 by November 2025—a 2,500 increase since May—marking the largest force since 2021. The goal? Expand to 260,000 active troops and double reservists to 200,000 by 2035, nearing Cold War-era levels of half a million.
Key initiatives include:
- Compulsory Questionnaires and Incentives: A new law mandates 18-year-old men to complete military aptitude forms, though service is voluntary for now. Recruits on 23-month contracts receive €2,600 ($3,000) monthly, free housing, and medical insurance, with options for lifelong careers.
- Spending Surge: Defense outlays hit 2.5% of GDP in 2026, more than double the 2021 figure of €48 billion ($56 billion). A €120 billion one-off boost, promised by former Chancellor Olaf Scholz in 2022, finally materialized in 2024, with €60 billion in procurements approved last month. By 2030, spending could reach 3.5% of GDP.
- NATO Pledges: Germany is committing to defend NATO’s vulnerable flanks, including forming a brigade for the Suwalki Gap—a strategic corridor between Belarus and Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave.
This buildup stems from multiple drivers. Russia’s ongoing refusal to withdraw from Ukraine has shattered Europe’s post-Cold War complacency, with 80% of Germans doubting Vladimir Putin’s peace intentions and fearing NATO attacks by 2029. Public support for higher defense spending climbed from 58% to 65% in a year, per Al Jazeera.
Yet, a deeper undercurrent is eroding trust in the US. A ZDF poll reveals 84% of Germans believe America won’t uphold Europe’s security guarantees—a sharp rise from 73% in June 2025. Six in ten distrust the US nuclear umbrella, and 90% view US political influence in Europe as harmful, especially amid fears of Trump bolstering far-right, Russia-friendly parties.
Experts like Timo Graf from the Bundeswehr University emphasize the stakes: “Europe’s future is at stake.” Former US commander General Ben Hodges calls Trump’s stance a “giant middle finger” to Europe, warning that without US support, war with Russia is a “worst nightmare” for older Germans scarred by WWII.
Challenges abound: Bureaucratic delays under Scholz slowed progress, and cultural stigma—rooted in Nazi-era memories—makes recruitment tough. The Bundeswehr is often seen as a “niche career” for the less educated, and Russian propaganda exploits conscription fears, framing it as “sending kids to be killed.”
Unpacking US “Blackmail”: Trump’s Threats and Transatlantic Coercion
The BBC’s analysis by Lyse Doucet paints a vivid picture of Trump “shaking the world order more than any president since WWII.” His “America First” agenda employs brute force, tariffs, and territorial grabs, often labeled as blackmail by European leaders.
Core tactics include:
- Tariff Wars as Leverage: Trump has imposed and threatened tariffs, including on European goods, to extract concessions. This echoes his demands for NATO spending hikes but escalates to punishing allies for non-compliance.
- Territorial Ambitions: Trump vows to “take back” the Panama Canal and acquire Greenland from Denmark, declaring “We have to have it” for Arctic security against China and Russia. He links this to unrelated issues, like rejecting Nobel Peace Prize ties in a letter to Norway’s PM.
- NATO Undermining: Criticizing the alliance as “not feared” by adversaries, Trump accelerates defense spending through warnings but risks its collapse. Threats of military action for Greenland violate the UN Charter, potentially invoking EU “trade bazooka” countermeasures like tariffs and market restrictions.
- Broader Aggression: Annexation threats extend to Canada and Venezuela, with a “Donroe Doctrine” justifying unilateral US interventions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarifies no invasions are planned, but Trump’s “mafia-style” dominance persists.
These moves erode multilateralism, with allies facing economic pain from retaliatory tariffs. As Mark Carney notes, US hegemony’s decline means fewer “global public goods” like security alliances. Europe’s response? A mix of defiance and dialogue: French President Emmanuel Macron warns of a “world without rules” at Davos, vowing counter-tariffs; UK PM Keir Starmer defends Greenland’s integrity without escalation; Italian PM Giorgia Meloni cites “miscommunication.”
Germany, under Chancellor Friedrich Merz (elected in 2025), demands independence from the US, viewing Trump’s National Security Strategy as dismissive of Europe’s “civilizational erasure” via regulation and migration.
Is this blackmail? Critics say yes—using economic and military threats to vassalize allies. Proponents argue it’s tough negotiation, crediting Trump for forcing NATO spending increases and handling conflicts like Israel-Iran.
Is Germany’s Army Buildup the Answer to US Blackmail?
The central question: Can Europe’s strongest conventional army neutralize US coercion?
Pros – A Path to Strategic Autonomy:
- Deterrence Against Multiple Threats: Germany’s buildup addresses Russia first but indirectly counters US unreliability. With 75% of Germans favoring an EU nuclear deterrent over US dependence, it fosters self-reliance. As Al Jazeera’s Minna Alander notes, cultural shifts since 2022 have accelerated changes.
- NATO Strengthening: By leading in troop numbers and spending, Germany could rally a “European NATO,” reducing vulnerability to US whims. Support for this rose to 57%, per polls.
- Economic and Soft Power Gains: Higher defense investment boosts jobs and innovation, while signaling Europe won’t be bullied—potentially deterring Trump’s tariffs through demonstrated resolve.
- Historical Precedent: Post-WWII, Germany avoided militarism, but evolving threats justify revival. Experts like Victoria Vdovychenko warn against over-reliance on processes, urging Ukraine-style self-defense.
Cons – Risks of Escalation and Inefficiency:
- Time and Capacity Gaps: Funds take years to translate into equipped forces; the Suwalki brigade is still recruiting. Russian Ambassador Sergey Nechayev accuses Germany of “preparing for confrontation,” risking propaganda-fueled escalation.
- Provoking the US: A stronger Europe might alienate Trump further, accelerating NATO fractures. The BBC highlights how threats like Greenland seizure could “trample” post-WWII alliances.
- Internal Divisions: Not all Europeans agree; older generations fear war without US backing, and costs strain budgets amid economic woes.
- Diplomacy Over Arms: Critics argue dialogue—e.g., Macron’s invites or Rutte’s praise—might de-escalate better than militarization. Blackmail thrives on division; unity via trade tools could suffice without arms races.
From all angles, it’s partial: Military buildup is a necessary hedge but not a standalone fix. It complements economic retaliation and diplomatic maneuvering.
Broader European and NATO Implications
Europe’s response extends beyond Germany. The EU’s anti-coercion instruments target US firms, while Arctic bolstering (e.g., Norway’s “ice-hard firmness”) counters Greenland threats. NATO’s future hangs in balance: Trump’s unilateralism risks “security ruptures,” but forced spending hikes (credited to him) enhance readiness.
Over 50 years of alliances are tested, with implications for global order. If Europe unites, it could emerge stronger; fragmentation benefits adversaries like Russia and China.
Expert Insights and Future Outlook
General Hodges: “Germans realize Trump won’t help.” Graf: “Public has woken up.” Doucet: Trump’s actions evoke “manifest destiny,” challenging collective security.
Looking ahead to 2029—Russia’s potential NATO threat year—Germany’s army could be pivotal. But success depends on overcoming recruitment hurdles, bureaucratic delays, and transatlantic mistrust. In Paris (where Macron leads defiance), as across Europe, the debate rages: Arm up or talk down?
In conclusion, Germany’s push for Europe’s strongest conventional army is a defiant response to US blackmail, offering autonomy amid Russian perils. Yet, it’s no silver bullet—true security demands balanced diplomacy, economic resilience, and alliance reform.
