US sets 2027 deadline for Europe-led NATO defense(reuters.com)
reuters.com
US sets 2027 deadline for Europe-led NATO defense
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-sets-2027-deadline-europe-led-nato-defense-officials-say-2025-12-05/
12 comments
NATO is dead.
The US part of it is. So Europe needs to be build nuclear weapons and delivery mechanisms like nothing before.
Maybe Europe should have listened to us during the Obama admin [0] instead of blowing us off. Now you reap what you sow.
We have been signaling to Europe for decades that we will be pivoting to Asia - that is where most of our troops are [1] and where much of our trade originates [2].
Either European states load share or they can deal with the Russian menace on their own. If Europe can't even help Ukraine independently, then how would they even help us in the Indo-Pacific?
The Europeans have no excuse given that Japan and South Korea have continued to maintain their own defensive capacity while under a US defense shield.
[0] - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/0...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deploym...
[2] - https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...
We have been signaling to Europe for decades that we will be pivoting to Asia - that is where most of our troops are [1] and where much of our trade originates [2].
Either European states load share or they can deal with the Russian menace on their own. If Europe can't even help Ukraine independently, then how would they even help us in the Indo-Pacific?
The Europeans have no excuse given that Japan and South Korea have continued to maintain their own defensive capacity while under a US defense shield.
[0] - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/0...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deploym...
[2] - https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...
From a European perspective, the primary purpose of NATO between 1992 and 2022 was to avoid wasting money on defense. Europe was willing to accept a world order, where the US was the hegemon and paid for the privilege. If the US does not want to do that anymore, European countries will grudgingly increase defense spending. To the extent they feel threatened.
The is no expectation that Europe would help the US in the Indo–Pacific. That's out of the scope for NATO, which is a North Atlantic alliance. Even territories such as Hawaii and French Guiana are considered distant colonies under the treaties, rather than integral parts of the member states. If someone invaded them, it would not concern NATO.
The is no expectation that Europe would help the US in the Indo–Pacific. That's out of the scope for NATO, which is a North Atlantic alliance. Even territories such as Hawaii and French Guiana are considered distant colonies under the treaties, rather than integral parts of the member states. If someone invaded them, it would not concern NATO.
> the primary purpose of NATO between 1992 and 2022 was to avoid wasting money on defense. Europe was willing to accept a world order, where the US was the hegemon and paid for the privilege
We shifted away from that policy in the Obama administration as part of the Pivot to Asia. We publicly vocalized this shift in strategy [0] during my time in the policy space.
Europe did not listen. Instead, they dragged us into Libya because France ran out of munitions within a week of air strikes. That should have been the first warning call.
Then Western and Northern European nations (except the UK) ignored the second warning in 2014 following the Russian annexation of Crimea and the War in Donbas.
> The is no expectation that Europe would help the US in the Indo–Pacific
Your leadership have messaged otherwise, like the UK [1], France [2], and Italy [3]
Yet we cannot trust the rest of Europe, especially looking at Spain's [4] steady pivot to China and Merkel's pro-China policies [5] before the recent pivot [6].
This is why under the Obama administration we ourselves began pivoting to Asia, because we are not in a position to fight a conventional war with both Russia and China.
--------
And what are you complaining about? We're taking the gloves off now. Deal with the Russians on your own while they are being armed by the Chinese [7]. The leaders you voted to power should have listened when we publicly and privately vocalized this shift in policy for decades.
[0] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6U81KNpyXPI
[1] - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[2] - https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/regional-str...
[3] - https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/italys-silent-enga...
[4] - https://ceias.eu/whats-behind-spains-pivot-to-china/
[5] - https://www.cap-lmu.de/download/2015/CAP-WP_German-China-Pol...
[6] - https://merics.org/en/comment/germanys-recent-china-policy
[7] - https://www.ft.com/content/52ea7aab-f8d1-46b6-9d66-18545c5ef...
We shifted away from that policy in the Obama administration as part of the Pivot to Asia. We publicly vocalized this shift in strategy [0] during my time in the policy space.
Europe did not listen. Instead, they dragged us into Libya because France ran out of munitions within a week of air strikes. That should have been the first warning call.
Then Western and Northern European nations (except the UK) ignored the second warning in 2014 following the Russian annexation of Crimea and the War in Donbas.
> The is no expectation that Europe would help the US in the Indo–Pacific
Your leadership have messaged otherwise, like the UK [1], France [2], and Italy [3]
Yet we cannot trust the rest of Europe, especially looking at Spain's [4] steady pivot to China and Merkel's pro-China policies [5] before the recent pivot [6].
This is why under the Obama administration we ourselves began pivoting to Asia, because we are not in a position to fight a conventional war with both Russia and China.
--------
And what are you complaining about? We're taking the gloves off now. Deal with the Russians on your own while they are being armed by the Chinese [7]. The leaders you voted to power should have listened when we publicly and privately vocalized this shift in policy for decades.
[0] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6U81KNpyXPI
[1] - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[2] - https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/regional-str...
[3] - https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/italys-silent-enga...
[4] - https://ceias.eu/whats-behind-spains-pivot-to-china/
[5] - https://www.cap-lmu.de/download/2015/CAP-WP_German-China-Pol...
[6] - https://merics.org/en/comment/germanys-recent-china-policy
[7] - https://www.ft.com/content/52ea7aab-f8d1-46b6-9d66-18545c5ef...
The Obama administration announced the shift in strategy. And European countries responded by grudgingly increasing defense spending. To the extent they felt threatened. That amounted to an increase from ~1.3% of GDP to ~1.55% between 2015 and 2020.
You could compare Europe to Latin America, which generally spends even less on defense. Because most countries there don't see any significant threats that could be countered with military force.
France and the UK are kind of weird. (I'm not sure about what Italy is doing in that company.) They still consider themselves major powers and occasionally use military as an extension of foreign policy. But that should not be confused with defense. (Which is why I think that the rebranding of the Department of Defense as the Department of War is intellectually honest.)
And to clarify my point, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm saying that defense spending is fundamentally wasted money. It may be necessary if you feel threatened, but necessary waste is still waste. Spending more on defense than you actually need is just stupid.
Also, it looks like you are misunderstanding Europe. European leaders are not "our leaders", as almost all of them are foreign leaders. Europe not a collective entity with a centralized government. It consists of a large number of sovereign states, each of which has its own interests and foreign/defense policies. And most of the time, they act according to those interests, rather than according to what people in Brussels (or Washington) would find convenient.
You could compare Europe to Latin America, which generally spends even less on defense. Because most countries there don't see any significant threats that could be countered with military force.
France and the UK are kind of weird. (I'm not sure about what Italy is doing in that company.) They still consider themselves major powers and occasionally use military as an extension of foreign policy. But that should not be confused with defense. (Which is why I think that the rebranding of the Department of Defense as the Department of War is intellectually honest.)
And to clarify my point, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm saying that defense spending is fundamentally wasted money. It may be necessary if you feel threatened, but necessary waste is still waste. Spending more on defense than you actually need is just stupid.
Also, it looks like you are misunderstanding Europe. European leaders are not "our leaders", as almost all of them are foreign leaders. Europe not a collective entity with a centralized government. It consists of a large number of sovereign states, each of which has its own interests and foreign/defense policies. And most of the time, they act according to those interests, rather than according to what people in Brussels (or Washington) would find convenient.
> To the extent they felt threatened. That amounted to an increase from ~1.3% of GDP to ~1.55% between 2015 and 2020.
Yet continued to trade as usual with Russia and took no steps to reduce reliance on Russia in strategic sectors.
Like I said, deal with the Russians on your own now. The only state we can even somewhat trust to help us in the Indo-Pac is France.
> France...
You realize France has territories in the Pacific that saw severe instability instigated by Chinese disinformation networks [0] right?
> I'm saying that defense spending is fundamentally wasted money. It may be necessary if you feel threatened...
Which we in the US are when looking at our presence in Pacific. If European nations cannot handle their own affairs, then we may as well put them in their place.
[0] - https://www.aspi.org.au/report/when-china-knocks-door-new-ca...
Yet continued to trade as usual with Russia and took no steps to reduce reliance on Russia in strategic sectors.
Like I said, deal with the Russians on your own now. The only state we can even somewhat trust to help us in the Indo-Pac is France.
> France...
You realize France has territories in the Pacific that saw severe instability instigated by Chinese disinformation networks [0] right?
> I'm saying that defense spending is fundamentally wasted money. It may be necessary if you feel threatened...
Which we in the US are when looking at our presence in Pacific. If European nations cannot handle their own affairs, then we may as well put them in their place.
[0] - https://www.aspi.org.au/report/when-china-knocks-door-new-ca...
> Yet continued to trade as usual with Russia and took no steps to reduce reliance on Russia in strategic sectors.
And some European countries are still doing that. They are even trying to strengthen their ties with Russia. Because they are sovereign states with their own interests, which do not always align with the EU, NATO, or the US.
And some European countries are still doing that. They are even trying to strengthen their ties with Russia. Because they are sovereign states with their own interests, which do not always align with the EU, NATO, or the US.
Absolutely, and as such, we as the United States are pivoting for our own strategic reasons.
And the outcome of that pivot might not be what you wanted. Because the American world order does not maintain itself on its own. Not even in Europe.
Without American commitment, Europe will likely become more fragmented. Some countries will remain aligned with the US. Some will become unaligned, and some will align with Russia and/or China.
Without American commitment, Europe will likely become more fragmented. Some countries will remain aligned with the US. Some will become unaligned, and some will align with Russia and/or China.
I found your commentary very tasteful, do you write on X or elsewhere?
Europe has much stronger defense than e.g. Japan. Where did you buy your Kool-Aid?
South Korea is a special case but so is Finland and Poland and Greece.
Russia is a formidable enemy (although not nearly as competent as many thought before 2022). You are much better off if you have allies and friends when fighting a war.
South Korea is a special case but so is Finland and Poland and Greece.
Russia is a formidable enemy (although not nearly as competent as many thought before 2022). You are much better off if you have allies and friends when fighting a war.