President Trump has expressed his disapproval of the NATO alliance, criticizing its reliance on American resources. During his presidency, he even contemplated abandoning the collective defense pact. In his second term, Trump and his senior officials have made it clear that the security of Europe is no longer a top priority for the United States, with a focus on the Indo-Pacific region instead.
Trump has suggested that the United States might not protect NATO members who he believes are not adequately investing in their own defense, labeling it as “common sense.” However, the question remains as to what Europeans would need to do in order to compensate for the significant American contribution to NATO.
The answer lies in increasing spending, personnel, time, and cooperation with the United States. Ivo Daalder, a former American ambassador to NATO, argues that Europe needs to invest more in its own weaponry, personnel, and capabilities. This includes developing integrated air and missile defense systems, long-range precision strike capabilities, transport aircraft, drones, and satellites. Europe also lacks the necessary troops and logistics specialists to effectively use their current arsenal.
Currently, there are only about 100,000 US troops in Europe, which would be difficult for the European nations to replace quickly. Additionally, most European nations no longer have conscription armies, making it challenging to attract and retain skilled recruits for the military. The recruitment of troops for potential peacekeeping missions in Ukraine would further strain personnel resources.
Furthermore, Europe faces political and bureaucratic constraints that impede joint investments in weapon production. The European Investment Bank is prohibited from providing loans for weapon manufacturing, and German law requires government orders before production can begin, making it difficult to establish a sustainable weapons industry.
While Europe is finally taking steps to address the funding issue, there are concerns about the time needed for a transition from American dominance in NATO. It is estimated that it would take at least a decade for Europe to catch up, and a sudden American withdrawal could be perceived as an opportunity for Russian aggression. Therefore, US cooperation and synchronization of withdrawals with European buildup is crucial for a secure transition.
The concept of a European army has also been suggested as a solution, aimed at ending duplication and making spending more efficient. However, there are questions about the command structure and political authority of such an army. Proponents argue that a unified army could be integrated into NATO and serve the primary purpose of deterring Russia from invading member states.
Overall, while European nations have made commitments to increase their military spending, significant challenges remain in terms of capabilities, personnel, and coordination.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/world/europe/europe-self-defense-trump.html
