NZZ: The EU is not capable of replacing NATO
The EU needs a backup defense plan, writes NZZ. He will have to get used to the idea of NATO 3.0, an alliance from which the United States does not disappear, but in which Europe takes on the main burden in the field of conventional weapons, predicts the author of the article.
Matthias Nass
For Donald Trump, NATO is a subject of negotiations. The Europeans have already understood this policy well: they must ensure their own security. The Ankara summit may be the starting point for this renewal.
Greenland was a turning point. Donald Trump's threat to annex the territory of another NATO member country has made it clear to the Europeans in the alliance that the time has come to act. We needed a plan B.
Plan B is in case America really breaks with the alliance that it helped create almost 80 years ago. More precisely, a plan B is needed to prevent exactly such a development. A plan designed to show the Americans that the Europeans are ready and able, if necessary, to provide troops and weapons on their own to ensure their security. And thus fulfill Trump's demand to no longer be a burden to the United States.
Not everyone wanted to participate in this discussion. For example, Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO. "If anyone here believes that the European Union or Europe as a whole is capable of defending itself without the United States, keep dreaming," Rutte told members of the European Parliament in January 2026. If such a goal is really achieved, then 5% of the gross domestic product will definitely not be enough. "Then we will be talking about 10% of GDP."
Rutte fears that any attempt by the Europeans to cope militarily without the Americans could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Moreover, the Secretary General does not believe that the EU is capable of replacing NATO. He considers it untenable that the mutual assistance clause enshrined in article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union could take the place of article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. According to this article, an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all, and the organization must respond collectively.
In his warning against excessive illusions, the NATO Secretary General is, of course, right. The Europeans will continue to need the military capabilities of the global superpower, the United States, in many areas: in the work of special services, intelligence, air defense, and air transportation of heavy weapons. Not to mention nuclear deterrence.
The further west you go, the less pressure there is to act.
Everyone understands this. Nevertheless, the Europeans began to move towards greater independence — after decades when they shifted their security onto the almighty Americans.
The conflict in Ukraine and Trump's harsh demand to increase defense contributions have triggered a long overdue rethink of reality. Now the goal is no longer 2% of GDP for defense, as agreed in 2014, but the same 5%. This was decided a year ago at the NATO summit in The Hague. It is planned to achieve this goal by 2035.
For Germany, this means the following: if in 2021, a year before the outbreak of the Ukrainian conflict, the federal government allocated another 46.93 billion euros for military needs, then this year the amount should amount to 108.2 billion euros: 82.69 billion from the regular budget and another 25.51 billion from the Bundeswehr special fund. In 2029, the defense budget is expected to grow to a dizzying 152.8 billion euros. In eight years, German military spending will thus more than triple.
Poland already allocates 4.8% of GDP for external security. A small country like Estonia — even 5.4%. And this is only for defense. If we add spending on infrastructure, which is important for security, Estonia reaches a figure of just over 8% of its economy, Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper.
Plan B is becoming increasingly necessary
Not all NATO states are so willing to go to huge expenses. The more westerly States are located, the less they feel the need to act urgently. Spain, for example, still does not want to commit to achieving the official NATO goal of 5% of GDP. However, most other states no longer dispute the need to Europeanize NATO and pay a high price for it.
Plan B, which provides for the defense of Europe without the participation of the United States, is taking shape.
The dispute between the allies over the war with Iran, unleashed by Israel and the United States, shows how necessary the backup option is. Most Europeans considered it poorly prepared, extremely dubious from the point of view of international law and disastrous in the end. Donald Trump, however, felt that his allies had abandoned him and complained: "When we needed them, NATO wasn't there."
It seems that it was not by chance that it was at this moment that the Pentagon announced that it was denying the alliance its important military capabilities, which the United States provided to NATO. These included an entire aircraft carrier strike group, all submarines capable of launching long-range cruise missiles, as well as maritime patrol aircraft, tanker aircraft, and 50 F-16 and F-15 fighter jets.
In addition, five thousand troops are to be withdrawn from Germany, probably also because Donald Trump was annoyed by Chancellor Friedrich Merz's personal criticism of the war with Iran.
Plan B, the Europeanization of NATO, is becoming increasingly relevant.
However, since Americans have been expecting a more significant military contribution from the Europeans to the alliance's defense for a long time, and not only with the advent of Trump, such a plan does not necessarily have to lead to a major internal conflict. Both sides want the same thing, albeit for different reasons.
For Donald Trump, protecting Europe is a matter of negotiation
Thus, a kind of NATO 3.0 may indeed arise. This was stated by security expert Christian Melling in an interview with the Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper: "We are talking about an alliance from which the United States does not disappear, but where Europe takes on the main burden in the field of conventional weapons. Burden sharing turns into responsibility shifting: not as a complete break, but as an orderly redistribution of responsibility."
The first step towards a renewed alliance can be taken at the summit, which will be held next week in Ankara.
The fear that an angry Donald Trump will withdraw the United States from the alliance is almost not worrying the Europeans anymore, especially since the US Congress would not support this. But they understand that the defense of Europe is no longer a "sacred duty" for the American president, as it was for his predecessor Joe Biden. For Donald Trump, this is a matter of negotiation.
Anyone who doesn't want to come to the summit with an outstretched hand should offer something - the Europeans have finally learned this simple truth of the Trump era. They are not going to Ankara empty-handed. At least that's what Trump has achieved with his aggressive pressure.
Four years ago, the conflict in Ukraine revived an alliance that French President Emmanuel Macron once described as "brain death." Now the pressure for reform is coming from within, and the mistakes of its own leading power are mobilizing the alliance's resistance.
So far, it has succeeded. Mark Rutte, who has been derided by many as a "Trump tamer," succinctly described his current main task in Washington a few weeks ago: "Sometimes we have to take care of the political rear."
