РУССКИЙ
11:52 16.04.2026 •
Pic.: POLITICO
A fallback plan to ensure Europe can defend itself using NATO’s existing military structures if the U.S. departs is gaining traction after getting buy-in from Germany, a long-term opponent of a go-it-alone approach, ‘The Wall Street Journal’ writes.
The officials working on the plans, which some officials are referring to as “European NATO,” are seeking to get more Europeans into the alliance’s command-and-control roles and supplement U.S. military assets with their own.
Crucially, a political reversal in Berlin is boosting momentum. For decades, Germany resisted French-led calls for greater European sovereignty in its defense, preferring to keep America as the ultimate guarantor of European security. That is now changing under German Chancellor Friedrich Merz because of concerns about the U.S.’s dependability as an ally during the Trump presidency and beyond, according to people familiar with his thinking.
The challenge is enormous. NATO’s entire structure is built around American leadership at almost every level, from logistics and intelligence to the alliance’s top military command.
Europeans are now trying to shoulder more of those responsibilities, which Trump has long demanded. The alliance will be “more European-led,” its Secretary-General Mark Rutte said recently.
Europeans are taking steps under their own initiative
The difference now is that Europeans are taking steps under their own initiative, due to Trump’s growing hostility, rather than as a result of U.S. goading. In recent days, Trump branded European allies as “cowards” and called NATO a paper tiger, adding, in reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Putin knows that too.”
“A burden shifting from the U.S. toward Europe is ongoing and it will continue…as part of U.S. defense and national security strategy,” said Finland’s president, Alexander Stubb, one of the leaders involved in the plans.
“The most important thing is to understand that it’s taking place and also to do it in a very managed and controllable way, instead of [the U.S.] just quickly pulling out,” Stubb said in an interview.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to leave NATO over allies’ refusal to support his Iran campaign, saying the move was already “beyond reconsideration.” Any withdrawal from the alliance would require congressional approval, but the president could still move troops or assets out of Europe, or withhold support, using his authority as commander in chief.
Germans’ role
The decisive political accelerant for Europe has been the historic change in Berlin, which hosts U.S. nuclear weapons and has long avoided questioning America’s role as a guarantor of European security. Germans and other Europeans feared that promoting European leadership inside NATO could offer the U.S. an excuse to reduce its role — an outcome many Europeans feared.
Yet, late last year, Merz started re-evaluating that long-held view after concluding that Trump was prepared to abandon Ukraine, according to people familiar with his thinking. Merz was concerned that Trump was confusing victim and aggressor in the war, and there were no longer clear values guiding U.S. policy within NATO, the people said.
Despite that, the German leader didn’t want to publicly question the alliance, which would be dangerous, the people said. Instead, the Europeans would need to take on a bigger role. Ideally, the U.S. would stay in the alliance but the bulk of the defense would be left to the Europeans, the people said.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said current discussions inside NATO aren’t always easy, but if they result in decisions, that would create an opportunity for Europe. He called NATO “irreplaceable both for Europe and the U.S.”
“But it’s also clear that we Europeans must assume more responsibility for our defense, and we are doing that,” Pistorius said. “NATO must become more European in order to remain trans-Atlantic.”
Only after Berlin moved did contingency planning turn into tackling practical military questions, such as who would run NATO’s air-and-missile defenses, reinforcement corridors into Poland and the Baltic states, logistics networks and major regional exercises if U.S. officers stepped aside. These remain the biggest challenges, officials said.
Officials involved want to accelerate Europe’s production of vital equipment in fields where Europe lags behind the U.S., including anti-submarine warfare, space and reconnaissance capabilities, in-flight refueling and air mobility. Officials point to the announcement by Germany and the U.K. last month of a joint project to develop stealthy cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons as an example of the new initiative.
The transition is already under way…
While the European effort marks a fundamental reversal in thinking, realizing the ambition will be difficult. The Supreme Allied Commander for Europe is always an American, and U.S. officials have said they have no intention of surrendering that post.
No European member has sufficient stature inside NATO to replace the U.S. as military leader.
The transition is already under way. A growing number of key NATO command posts are now held by Europeans, and many major exercises held recently or scheduled in the coming months will be led by European forces—notably in the Nordic region, where the alliance borders Russia.
Germany’s shift opened the way to the most sensitive element of sovereign European defense: replacing the U.S. nuclear umbrella. After Trump threatened to invade Greenland, Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron then opened discussions over whether France’s nuclear deterrent could be extended to cover other European nations, including Germany.
...There's a psychological element to this militarization of Europe outside the framework of cooperation with the United States. And it's crucial.
Who can imagine the French subordinating themselves to the Germans, and the British to the Poles? Yet this very subordination signifies the transition to multinational forces in Europe.
In NATO in the past everyone silently submitted to the Americans, but what are they supposed to do now, when many nations in Europe historically dislike their neighbors and are unwilling to submit to one another? How are they supposed to create a common army — under whose leadership to follow it’s orders? This is next to unthinkable in the current European situation.
And finally – a historical reminder: Napoleon and Hitler, who were able to create a European horde against Russia finished their aggressions with a known result...
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
