The European NATO (II)

Independently of the US

Plans to expand the military activities of European member states within NATO have been systematically pursued since the beginning of last year. The idea is to make the Alliance fully operational in conventional warfare even without the United States in the event of war. The military build-up was boosted by uncertainties during President Donald Trump’s second term in office as to American commitments. Trump indicated that he might choose even to withdraw from NATO – something he threatened on several occasions. While a number of individual NATO states quickly seized the militarisation initiative, the biggest boost for the new war footing came, as the Wall Street Journal reported in April, from Germany at the end of last year. This was when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s decided that Germany would join in the build-up with a huge military spending pledge. The aim now is to replace the US presence – which has always been dominant at all levels, in terms of both personnel and hardware – with European officers and European weapon systems. The most recent major reshuffle of personnel, announced in early February, saw European generals being promoted to the command posts of the Joint Force Command in Naples and the Joint Force Command in Norfolk (Virginia). Both posts had previously been held by American generals. NATO manoeuvres are also increasingly being conducted under European leadership and even exclusively with European troops (as reported by german-foreign-policy.com [1]).

Plugging the gaps

A few days ago, the European NATO member states succeeded in taking a further step to self-reliance. In the run-up to the Alliance’s internal Force Sourcing Conference – held in early June at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium – the US decided to ‘decommit’ resources. The Pentagon withdrew large number of aircraft, drones, ships and submarines, reversing their previous availability for NATO operations.[2] This pull-back included one of two long-range bomber wings, 54 of the 153 fighter jets, and half of their cruiser and destroyer squadrons. Last week, it was claimed that the European NATO members had managed, just in time for the NATO summit, to “largely fill the gaps left by the United States”. This was confirmed by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), US General Alexus Grynkewich. He added that the bloc was looking for “workarounds” to address remaining shortfalls.[3] One example of what might still be missing is replacements for American long-range bombers. Nevertheless, there is a belief that the overall process demonstrates “a stronger Europe” within NATO, as Grynkewich’s deputy, John Stringer, claims.[4]

A new headquarters

The Bundeswehr and the Dutch armed forces took a further step in this direction last week with a joint undertaking in Estonia. In Valga, on the border with Lithuania, the 1st German-Netherlands Corps, officially assumed the role of a tactical headquarters for all NATO operations in Estonia and Latvia. The new unit was inaugurated by German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius.[5] The corps, established back in 1995, had previously been deployed above all in Afghanistan. But it will now be directly involved in preparations for a potential war against Russia. Responsibilities for the Baltic states are now divided: the Multinational Corps Northeast, based in Szczecin, Poland (and initially headed by Germany, Poland and Denmark), has relinquished its responsibility for Estonia and Latvia and will now act as a tactical headquarters commanding NATO operations only in Poland and Lithuania. This remit includes defence of the geostrategically highly sensitive Suwałki Gap, which runs from Belarus along the Polish-Lithuanian border to Kaliningrad.[6] NATO strategists regard it as a potential target for a Russian attack. The new role of the 1st German-Netherlands Corps also strengthens “Europe’s role within NATO”, according to a recent statement from the Federal Ministry of Defence.[7]

‘NATO 3.0’

The Europeanisation of NATO is unfolding in complete harmony with, and indeed under pressure from, the United States. The US stance is exemplified by a speech given by Elbridge Colby at the meeting of NATO defence ministers on 12 February in Brussels. Colby, an influential Pentagon official serving as Under Secretary of War for Policy, attended the meeting on behalf of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. He spoke of NATO currently entering a new phase. Whilst in the decades immediately following its foundation it had focused on the joint transatlantic confrontation with the Soviet Union, it shifted its focus from 1990 onwards to overseas operations far beyond the Alliance’s territory, not least in Yugoslavia and then in Afghanistan. Colby spoke of a shift from ‘NATO 1.0’ to ‘NATO 2.0’.[8] Now, however, the task was to undertake its transformation into ‘NATO 3.0’. The reason was clear: the US is currently devoting itself to new priorities. Its focus, he said, lay on fresh military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, on the one hand (as reported by german-foreign-policy.com [9]), and on a stronger presence in the Asia-Pacific region, on the other. What’s more, Colby argued, the US had to be capable of waging war on several fronts simultaneously.

Under German leadership

With this in mind, Colby concluded that European states would have to ensure their own defence as far as possible. Apart from nuclear deterrence, the US would no longer have sufficient spare capacity to support Europe.[10] NATO members in Europe would therefore not only have to continue to ramp up military spending but also turn this into “war-fighting effectiveness”. The aim, he said, was to boost “readiness” but also build “stockpiles” and the industrial capacity needed to manufacture all types of defence equipment. If this were achieved, NATO would emerge from its current disputes stronger than ever. Colby expanded on this at the end of April with an assessment on the X platform of the military strategy that had just been adopted by the German government – indeed the first such war strategy in the history of the Federal Republic (as reported by german-foreign-policy.com [11]). Colby concluded that Berlin’s stance confirmed that Germany is now “taking the leading role”. The Pentagon was, he said, prepared to provide assistance to the European NATO member states to keep moving in this direction – “especially Germany”. The German military strategy was a clear, credible path “towards NATO 3.0” that “rebalances” the Alliance. Berlin’s rapid conventional build-up was well-suited to creating a really strong European NATO without delay.

Yet despite all the words of encouragement, the question remains for the United States as to whether it will succeed in retaining control over such a European NATO, or whether Europe’s NATO members will become an independent military power – independent even of Washington. And this question has long been discussed in policy circles. german-foreign-policy.com will be reporting more on this shortly.

[1] See: Die europäische NATO.

[2] Thomas Gutschker: Eine lange Liste amerikanischer Ausmeldungen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 17.06.2026.

[3] Sabine Siebold: Europeans fill most gaps left by US in NATO defence plans, top commander says. reuters.com 01.07.2026.

[4] Andrea Palasciano, Lizzy Burden: Europe Has Replaced Most US Cuts Within NATO, Top Commander Says. bloomberg.com 03.07.2026.

[5], [6] Deutschland und die Niederlande – Seite an Seite für Estland und Lettland. bundeswehr.de 30.06.2026.

[7] Presseerklärung des deutschen und niederländischen Verteidigungsministeriums. bmvg.de 28.05.2026.

[8] Remarks by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby at the NATO Defense Ministerial (As Prepared). war.gov 12.02.2026.

[9] See: Einflusskampf um Lateinamerika.

[10] Remarks by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby at the NATO Defense Ministerial (As Prepared). war.gov 12.02.2026.

[11] See: Die „europäische Führungsrolle“ der Bundeswehr.