By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte cautioned that Europe cannot defend itself without the United States, especially amidst calls for greater European military independence. Rutte argued that to do so, the EU would need to drastically increase defense spending and develop its own nuclear capabilities, effectively losing the US nuclear umbrella. He defended the US’s continued commitment to NATO’s Article Five, but acknowledged the US expects European countries to increase their military spending. Finally, Rutte dismissed the idea of a European defence force replacing US troops, stating it would be overly complicated.
Read the original article here
The central argument being made by NATO-chief Rutte, that Europe’s defense is irrevocably tied to the United States and that any notion of self-sufficiency is a mere fantasy, is, to put it mildly, contentious. It feels like a statement designed to maintain the status quo, and maybe even a bit… flattering to the US. But when you look at the numbers, and the current realities of global threats, the picture isn’t quite so clear.
Europe, even without the US, has significant military spending. We’re talking about roughly $572 billion annually, which, compared to Russia’s $149 billion and China’s estimated $247 billion, paints a different picture than the one Rutte seems to be presenting. It’s not that Europe is a military minnow; it’s more like a sleeping giant, and a giant that has, in the case of Ukraine, been shown to hold its own against a powerful, if ultimately incompetent, adversary. Sure, there’s a need to bolster defense infrastructure, factories, and readiness, but the gap in overall resources isn’t as vast as it’s being made out to be.
The question then becomes: against whom exactly is Europe supposedly defenseless? Russia? They’ve stumbled badly in Ukraine, proving that their military capabilities are not what they were made out to be. China? While a potential long-term concern, they’re more focused on economic influence and regional interests, not a direct invasion of Europe. The most credible threat seems to be a scenario where the US, for whatever reason, disengages from NATO or, worse, turns its attention towards a more isolationist or even adversarial stance.
The assertion that Europe’s only nuclear protection comes from the US is also debatable. France and the UK have their own nuclear arsenals. Sure, expanding that capability further wouldn’t hurt. And the idea that Europe needs to spend 10% of its GDP on defense, as suggested by Rutte, is utterly absurd. This figure would lead to a military budget that rivals, or even dwarfs, that of the US, a complete overreach for any realistic defensive need. Even a more reasonable target of 3.5% of GDP would significantly boost defense spending, without breaking the bank.
Then there’s the political undercurrent. Rutte’s comments and demeanor are causing a lot of concern. The feeling seems to be that he’s too eager to please a certain political faction in the US. The constant refrain of “defend against whom?” is a legitimate question, a challenge to the assumptions that underpin Rutte’s rhetoric. And there’s also the concern that he might be trying to hold onto his job.
Let’s face it: Russia is struggling in Ukraine. China, despite its economic and military might, isn’t planning a blitzkrieg across Europe. The only immediate, credible threat to European security might be a future US that is less committed to its allies and more focused on domestic priorities. Europe has the resources, the technology, and the manpower to defend itself, and the experience of Ukraine demonstrates that a determined defense, even against a larger, more powerful foe, can be successful.
The discussion needs to shift from a narrative of helpless dependence to one of strategic autonomy. Perhaps it’s time for a change in leadership at NATO, a leader who understands the evolving geopolitical landscape and who recognizes Europe’s ability to chart its own course, especially now.