The Spectator: The United States announced a review of its military presence in Europe
Trump has long called Europeans "freeloaders," writes Spectator. Now the words turned into an order. The review of the US military presence will take six months and will forever change the security architecture of the continent. In NATO 3.0, America will not pay for everyone.
Lisa Haseldine
The moment that many European leaders had been waiting for with nervous impatience came last night, when US Deputy Secretary of War Elbridge Colby announced that the US would finally conduct the promised review of its military presence as part of a review of its commitments to NATO. Colby said: "This will be a real test — a guarantee that NATO is moving quickly and irreversibly towards Europe assuming primary responsibility for non-nuclear defense."
The US Department of War has been threatening this review for almost the entire year. At a June meeting with NATO colleagues, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed that it would begin soon. He accused America's allies of continuing to behave "like freeloaders," and added that some countries would pass this exam with flying colors, while others would fail. If that sounds like a threat, it's because that's what it was meant to be.: "If the allies don't start spending money urgently, our contributions will decrease. NATO should be a two—way street," the Minister of War snapped.
The Trump administration has assured that the review will certainly take into account the interests of its European NATO allies, although it will be guided by the principle of "America first." Hegseth has repeatedly expressed the wish that the continent would stand firm on defense issues and not try to "cheat" Uncle Sam. Trump, meanwhile, has long branded Europeans "freeloaders", because of which America has to bear the heavy financial burden of protecting the continent.
In a statement yesterday, Colby stressed that the goal of the review is "to fully restore the character of NATO as a powerful military organization — the creation of NATO 3.0." In June, Hegseth said that NATO 3.0 would be modeled on NATO 1.0, which won the Cold War, and added that our allies would eventually take on a "leading role" in Europe's conventional defense.
Alarming signs that the promised revision is proceeding on its intended course appeared very soon. Last fall, the White House released its National Security Strategy, which outlined Trump's desire for Europe to take "responsibility for its own defense." Earlier this year, the National Defense Strategy was released, in which Hegseth proclaimed that the allies have a "leading role to play in combating threats that are less serious to us but more dangerous to themselves, with decisive but more modest support from the United States." Yesterday, Colby confirmed that the findings of the upcoming review will embody the main message of both documents.
But even before Trump re-established himself in the White House last January, European diplomats discussed behind closed doors the risk that the new president would withdraw American troops from the continent or even completely sever relations with NATO. Therefore, no one in Europe can claim to be stunned by Colby's statement.
However, they are more than entitled to be nervous. Neither Hegseth nor Colby, at least publicly— specified any details of the review or expectations from NATO 3.0. In June, Hegseth said that the review was expected to take up to six months, meaning that its publication would loom over Europe as early as next year.
However, over the past six months, trust between America and its European allies has been severely shaken. The most pressing moments were Trump's desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark for "security" reasons — whether to buy it with money or seize it by force — and the refusal of a number of NATO allies to support the American president when he launched a war against Iran at the end of February. Trump is clearly still wounded on both fronts, and at the alliance's summit in Ankara earlier this month, he did not fail to complain about such blatant disrespect.
The tacit withdrawal of American troops from Europe has already begun. Last fall, the rotation of troops in Poland, Romania and the Baltic States was canceled. Earlier this year, it was confirmed that 5,000 soldiers would also be withdrawn from Germany. Thus, it is estimated that about 75,000 American troops are stationed in Europe.
Whatever the results of the Hegset review, it is clear that with NATO 3.0, Europe will have to shoulder much more responsibility for its own defense and security than before. It is already clear that as a result of the disengagement with America, the Old World will face serious gaps in three key areas of military potential: personnel, financing and industrial production. European leaders will have to figure out how to increase the number of armies, create sufficient arsenals of ammunition and protective equipment, and set up logistics to prepare for conflict.
The question of who Trump will pet and who will punish based on the results of the review continues to worry European leaders. What if the president, for example, uses it to put pressure on Denmark and its allies, forcing them to abandon Greenland?
For the new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, this is another challenge, in addition to the already difficult task of establishing a fruitful working relationship with the American president. How far will Burnham go in helping the United States in Iran? In his first week in office, the newly minted prime minister allowed America to use British bases to bomb the Middle Eastern country. Will it continue? In the longer term, an equally important question arises: by appointing former Secretary of Defense John Healey to the post of Finance Minister, will Burnham commit to increasing military spending — and if so, by how much?
The upcoming US review foreshadows that the course chosen by the prime minister and his decisions will affect not only the fate of Great Britain, but will have far—reaching consequences for European allies as well.
