By As uncertainty grows over the future of transatlantic defense cooperation, Europe’s major military powers are quietly preparing for a new strategic reality—one in which the continent may have to take greater responsibility for its own security, with or without full backing from the United States.
Officials from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and several Nordic nations have been engaged in discreet discussions to design a long-term strategy aimed at easing Europe’s reliance on American military power. This initiative anticipates a potential fracture within NATO, driven by fears that President Donald Trump could further withdraw U.S. support for European defense, according to The Financial Times.
The proposal would include firm commitments on increasing European defence spending and building up military capabilities, in an effort to convince Trump to agree to a gradual handover that would allow the US to focus more on Asia.
The US, which spends more on defence than all other Nato allies combined, is indispensable to European security.
In addition to its nuclear deterrent, which is committed to the defence of Europe with several European air forces carrying US nuclear weapons, it provides military capabilities that continental allies do not possess, runs air, naval and troop bases and has 80,000 troops stationed in Europe.
Countries including Germany, France and the UK have moved to increase their defence spending or accelerate already planned increases since Trump’s election, while the EU has rolled out initiatives for its member states to speed up increased military investments.
Rather than creating a new defense organization, officials emphasize the importance of preserving NATO’s structure, even in a reduced form. Replacing NATO’s command systems, planning protocols, and operational guidelines would be a monumental task. According to Marion Messmer, a senior fellow at Chatham House, NATO provides the kind of institutional framework that European countries rely on. “It does a lot of the work that you would need to do from scratch if you were to set up a different kind of structure just for European members,” she explained to the outlet.
The plan would take around five to ten years.
Currently, the United States contributes more to NATO’s defense than all other member states combined. Its advanced military capabilities, nuclear deterrence, and 80,000 troops stationed throughout Europe are foundational to the alliance. Replacing that level of support would demand not only a significant financial investment but also a fundamental transformation of Europe’s defense infrastructure—something officials estimate could take up to a decade, not including nuclear deterrence capabilities.
PS for reference:https://t.co/64agu95wDH pic.twitter.com/p3ud7RZ7p7
— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) August 13, 2024
Recent moves by the UK and France to support Ukraine militarily—outside of direct U.S. involvement—reflect this evolving dynamic. These efforts are being seen as early indicators of what a more independent European defense posture might look like.
Andrew Latham, a professor of international relations at Macalester College, recently explained that “The U.S. strategic community is increasingly questioning the costs and benefits of maintaining NATO as it now exists. America spends more on defense than all of its NATO allies combined, yet European powers continue to underinvest in their own militaries. Despite years of American pressure, most NATO members still fail to meet spending target of 2 percent of GDP. If the U.S. disengages from NATO, it will not be because of one administration’s rhetoric but because the alliance no longer serves America’s highest strategic priorities.
While some European leaders have floated ideas about “strategic autonomy,” the reality is that the EU lacks the cohesion, military capability or political will to replace NATO. France and Germany disagree on the future of European defense, while Eastern European states, particularly Poland and the Baltics, still see America, not Brussels, as their primary security guarantor. A U.S. exit from NATO would expose these fractures, forcing Europe to confront its own strategic vulnerabilities.
Moreover, a post-NATO Europe would be a continent of competing security arrangements, not a single cohesive defense bloc. The most likely outcome would be a security framework centered around the most militarily capable states — France, the U.K. and possibly Germany — with smaller nations band-wagoning out of necessity. Meanwhile, Eastern European states would seek bilateral or minilateral security arrangements, potentially deepening their ties with the U.S. outside of NATO’s framework. Such a scenario would fundamentally reshape transatlantic relations, leaving Europe in a precarious position in an era of global instability.
The demise of NATO is not inevitable, but neither is its indefinite survival. The world that gave birth to the alliance no longer exists, and neither does the logic that once sustained it. If the U.S. steps back from NATO, it will not be because of isolationism, but because American grand strategy must prioritize competition with China and a more restrained approach to global commitments.”
As the July summit approaches, European leaders are working urgently to finalize a new defense roadmap—one designed to protect the foundational elements of the NATO alliance while preparing for a future in which American leadership can no longer be assumed.
[Read More: Greenpeace Could Go Bankrupt With This Verdict]
