Lauren Speranza, Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, told peers that Washington expects Britain to assume a stronger leadership role in NATO while retaining the flexibility to engage in global security issues such as the Indo-Pacific.
Speaking before the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, she described how the US is redefining its global military posture, with implications for the UK’s strategic priorities.
“We are still awaiting the release of the US national security strategy and the national defense strategy, which is likely to be followed by a global posture review,” Speranza said. “It is expected that there may be a bit of withdrawal of capability from the European continent, but the US has been clear that it plans to continue extending the nuclear umbrella and is looking for additional European contributions in the conventional sense.”
She warned that “the risk that some US capabilities will move out of the continent is not zero,” and said this shift increases the expectation that the UK will step up. “This Administration would like to see the UK take on a stronger leadership role in NATO—not just on spending but on rallying other allies to do more on European security issues—and contribute to NATO missions.”
Speranza pointed to Britain’s leadership of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group and its involvement in recent NATO missions such as Eastern Sentry and Baltic Sentry as examples of the kind of engagement Washington wants to see continue.
Pressed by Baroness Crawley about US expectations for Britain beyond Europe, Speranza said opinions differ across the American government. “The White House might have a different view from the Pentagon,” she said, “but broadly speaking, because the UK has only so many resources, forces and capabilities, the Department of Defense has encouraged it to focus on the European theatre and reduce its involvement elsewhere in the world, including in the Indo-Pacific.”
Still, she added that “there are places where the US would likely welcome limited contributions from the UK—in the Persian Gulf or in the Indo-Pacific through AUKUS, particularly if there is a crisis.” That balance, she suggested, marks a shift from the previous US Administration, which viewed the Indo-Pacific and European theatres as strategically linked and urged allies like Britain to bridge the two regions. “It is possible that another Administration could seek to return to an approach more focused on functional domains of competition that necessitate closer cooperation between the UK and regions outside Europe,” she said.
Speranza concluded that Britain’s long-term challenge will be to remain adaptable while maintaining its NATO focus. “The UK likely needs to maintain some level of flexibility to adapt to different approaches,” she said. “It is in the UK’s interest to maintain its relationships around the world and protect its sovereign interests, while being responsive to US signals where it makes sense.”
She praised the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review as striking the right balance. “It prioritises a NATO-first, but not NATO-only, approach,” she said, “emphasising readiness to return forces to Europe where necessary.”
While Europe remains the focus, the review also recognises the importance of the Indo-Pacific and Middle East as “secondary priorities” and identifies growing challenges from China in areas such as technology competition.
The UK has barely the resources to look after the UK
One has to consider that the USA has no ships, just two brigades and only four fighter squadrons in Europe, so how much more can they reduce until they become completely irrelevant?
Countries like Finland and Poland with their large and expanding forces have become far more important for European security than the USA.
It’s useful to have the USA in NATO as the ultimate deterrent especially through strategic weapons but in terms of hard power guarding Europe it’s increasingly irrelevant and it los paints a massive target in Europes back with animosity with China.
I for one am personally quite happy with the new role the USA sees for itself, Europe and the UK. Also as the US retreats further from democracy it’s going to be harder for us to maintain such a close alliance with them.
makes sense I suppose. there have u been many exercises for the armed forces of Europe to work and train together and we can trust in a coordinated and coherent response to any threat.
I thought it was us moving away from democracy.
In what way?
Jim, you perhaps overlook the fact that the US could reinforce this meagre presence in Europe during increased tension or TTW. They used to run Exercise REFORGER (Return of Troops to Germany) periodically, and I think they have contingency plans for something similar today.
No ships Jim? Do you do any research or just post wishful thinking all day? The USA has an entire destroyer squadron in Spain (DESRON 60) and Task force 65 in Italy. They alone would probably defeat all surface combatants of all European navies.
USS Stout (DDG 55)
USS Ramage (DDG 61)
USS Carney (DDG 64)
USS Ross (DDG 71)
USS Donald Cook (DDG 75)
USS Porter (DDG 78)
Yeeeaaah, Oh Wait, No !
Umm you think 6 destroyers could destroy 120 frigates and destroyers.. so 1 US major surface combatant is worth 20 European major surface combatants… wow your channelling George Armstrong Custer there aren’t you 😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😜😜😜😜🤪🤪🤪🤯🤯🤯🤯
Great word now let us see the capital investment in equipment and personnel otherwise it is all word salad!!!
The UK acts according to it’s own interests, not those of an incompetent autocracy with a giant stick.
“The UK acts according to it’s own interests”
Recent evidence (last 15+ years) would suggest the opposite
You’re absolutely right of course. Let me change that to “The UK *should* act according to it’s own interests”.
This transactional approach they’re pursuing works both ways. They can’t withdraw from their security commitment in Europe at such a critical moment, and still presume to dictate terms to Europeans.
The last time the UK engaged in the Pacific with the Americans, it was all but expelled from their history books. So, what is it we are to be ready for?
The tendency to shoot yourself in the foot is a signature characteristic of the British national psyche. HS2, ‘oven ready’ Brexit deals, paranoid levels of Covid lockdown, 5000+ new applications per day for disability benefit, serial screw ups in defence contracts. The list is endless. “ I didn’t get where I am today Weggie, without being able to spot a case of suppressed anger and resentment.”
“paranoid levels of Covid lockdown”
🤣😂🤣😂
“US wants it’s allies to look after themselves without help, but be ready to die for the US in the Pacific.”
That’s the plan 🫡🇺🇸
😂
Sounds like Maga logic right there
yet another example of the American arrogance telling us how to run our affairs
Until this dishonest government pulls its finger out which I doubt. We will have trouble defending anything. Apparently the MOD has overspent by 2 billion on fresh air.
So, should it be Argus that goes to Brazil rather than Albion? Should we have 2 dozen more Typhoons and should we make an offer for Oman’s CR2 tanks?
We await the next thrilling instalment of the defence industry plan.
Add to that a purchase of Spain’s tranche 2 typhoons (24 aircraft) and an additional new batch of 24 new build typhoons needed to return some semblance of attritional capacity and mass to the RAF.
Also what’s happened to SDSRs declaration on surface combatants. The RN is supposed to have “at least” 25 major surface combatants eg destroyers and frigates. Even with type 26+31 frigates in build (13 in total) the RN is “at least” 6 major warships short. More type 31(26 frigates are desperately needed.
We await the defence equipment plan keenly. No doubt it will become an utter fudge.
One word, “banjaxed”.
I think we have heard that before.. essentially it’s a message of stay in your own back yard and let the US do as it will but be prepared to lend a hand if we need you.
Sorry US the UK has its own strategic interests across the world and our own strategic partnerships with nations such as Japan, Australia etc, we have real estate in the pacific ( be it very small and pointless) but we also have a huge stake in the south Atlantic, Antarctic and South America continental shelf as well a very significant history in Africa and the western Indian Ocean..
So yes you can want the UK to leave you to hover all the trade deals and capture all the resources you can in deals for the US..but the UK needs to an will pursuer its interests first..and one of those interests is European security, but European security comes from world wide engagement..which is what the UK is very good at..
Let Germany and Poland lead on the security of the NATO eastern boarder..they have the most skin in the game and are perfectly able ( maybe the US issue is that Germany and Poland are a bit less pliant to the US and focused on the needs of the EU, its strategic competitor). The UK can lead on what it does naval power and seaways as well as global influence.
It really is past time European nations found their geostrategic gumption again and Europe as a single voice started to exerted more power and influence in the world. WW2 and its multi generational trauma is now past.. the US is not “medicine” Europe needs to get over itself. It’s not as catchy as American first but I’m all up for “Western and eastern and Central European liberal democracies first and the relationship with everyone else should be enlightened self interest only.
For me that means a very solid and fair zero tariff trade zone and a very solid European defence alliance that is developed to protect and promote European world wide security and interests.. so not just if Russia crosses a line, but if any South American countries and alliances decide to say attack the Falklands.. when the Antarctic opens.. a recognition and support of the UKs BAT and Norways and Frances claims. The European democratic nations have standing and justified claims for 32% of Antarctic..based on the fundamental principles of we found it we planned the flag on it and died exploring it and morally no other buggers ever lived their or had been their before. Also how will Europe take its rightful share of the high north.. because at the moment the US and Russia/china plan to take it all.
The need is to be based on European nations offering each other absolute support and always being on the side of other European democracies over any other nations interests..I know we like the Anglo sphere, but our own future is fundamentally based around a powerful set of prosperous European democracies that get on and treat each other like family..when European nations start competing against each other on the world stage it ends in staggering levels of blood spilt in Europe ( this is the one reason I supported the EU, even though I firmly believed it needed total reform and to stop going anywhere near political unification… it needed to be a military and economic alliance).
For the sake of global power the UK needs good relationships with the Anglosphere and commonwealth, France needs good relations with its colonies and Spain and Portugal needs to leaver its South American relations.. but within theses relationships their should always be a Europe first approach.
Sadly the world is splitting we are seeing the development of a Chinese/russian/North Korean power block, the U.S. is now an American first power block that is essentially seeing a complete collapse in its relationship with its other Anglo sphere northern neighbour and wider allies, India is sailing its course of armed neutrality, the western Pacific democracies are scrambling to understand where they fit in the sandwich that is an ongoing Sino US conflict that may/will go hot at some point.
Basically Europe has a decision to make ( including us) will it stay a squabbling set of Meduim sized nations that are slowly emasculated by large power blocks and essentially become a richer more comfortable version of Africa ( essentially a playground for the US and china Russia powerblocks to play geopolitics and geostrategic games over.) will it create a cast iron Europe only defence alliance, arm up to the hilt tell the world to piss off and live in glorious isolation ( heavy armed neutrality.. but at risk of strangulation by the new worlds power blocks). Or will it get over itself lever the fact it has about 23% of the worlds wealth and resources and become its own power block focused on its own world wide interests ( as a group) over all others.
Now the UK may try and stay independent.. but the reality is it’s going to have to play in one power groups pond.. and let’s be honest the US does not seem to like or play fair with anyone, china are a bunch of nationalists communists who will use anyone and anything to the advantage of china and only china, Russia and its satellites are very unpleasant and unpredictable fascists and the western pacific democracies are simply to far away to be true allies… so the Uk and European nations better start playing better with each other and showing more unified gumption..
Nah – go for a Commonwealth free trade and defence treaty.
If Europe including the U.K. genuinely spends circa 3% on defence with a contribution from all nations to cover the cost of the U.K. and Frances nuclear deterrent, which could be marginally increased in size then this is more than enough to deal with Russia without any US intervention.
That level of expenditure would also provide the U.K. and other European nations with a reasonable capability to project some power beyond the continent even if in small penny packet national terms.
I see very little hard evidence the U.K. (but plenty of rhetoric) is prepared to make that step up or France who likewise have enfeebled economies.
As for big power blocks I don’t think Europe will ever really change despite its share of global trade being on a steady downward trajectory. The U.K. needs to become more agile and seek trade opportunities wherever it can find them but not unduly harness itself to any one block.
Mr Trump like all politicians will in a few years will be history and I suspect the US might find itself looking to rebuild some alliances but it has and always will be very focused on its own self interest and the U.K, Europe and its other allies need to become less dependent in the next decade or so, which would be healthy for western democracies including the US.
“US and china Russia powerblocks”
Russia is neither a power block nor even a superpower, it just has an unnecessarily large nuclear deterrence.
It had a GDP slightly smaller than that of Italy before the war, and just the U.K. and Germany combined have a larger population.
It does have a lot of land, but most it is forest (50%), plus a significant amount of permafrost. The U.K. farms 70% of its land, Russia farms 13%.
Which is why, even with only the half-hearted support of the West, Ukraine has been able hold out against its conventional forces.
Hi spock china Russian power block not Russian powerblock on its own Russia is as you say a middle rank power with a large nuclear arsenal and the blessing of a massive land mass with rich natural resources and access to to both the Atlantic and pacific…. Essentially what we are seeing is Russia becoming the second partner in a new multi national power with China as leader. In reality Europe needs to factor china into its geostrategic calculations related to Russia.. China is the reason Russia is still able to prosecute the Ukraine war as it essentially build Russia a semi conductor industry from the ground up. Europe needs to be prepared for China to support and supply Russia with anything for access to its minerals and raw materials as well as the high north access.
Essentially Russia has sold itself and picked a side.
Why should the UK care about what the US wants
‘US wants UK to focus on Europe but stay ready for Pacific’ = fine. Meanwhile the UK has it’s own priorities and would like the US to pay more attention to what it’s allies want. It’s a two way thing, not all America. America first doesn’t work for the rest of the world – if America wants to be ‘first’ and discount it’s allies it can expect it’s allies to think likewise!
The reality is that we have next to nothing to send to the Pacific to help the USA in a.conflict with China.
We don’t have anywherr near enough troops, aircraft or ships to even play even our allotted role in NATO Europe. (The idea that we concentrate on our navy and leave everyone else to do the heavy lifting in Eastern Europe if push comes to shove is for the birds. NATO.expects us to and we are committed to, provide an army corps and sizeable air component to NATO Europe).
We need to rebuild our forces first of all, which an increase in defence spend to 3.5% of GDP will permit. As for helping the USN in the Pacific 9n any confrontation with.China, that is strategically a low priority. We can’t even muster a full CSG or equip it with a functional air wing. The best that NATO Europe could do, in the event of.a China-US conflict in thr SCS, would be to provide a joint submarine squadron and one at most two, joint European carrier groups, comprising warships from half a dozen Euro navies.
For other peacetime emergencies around the globe, we have very limited.military resources at our disposal to deploy. That’s what happens when you run the army down to 4 combat manoeuvre brigades, 7 under-strength combat air squadrons and one carrier group that needs first call on the very limited number of subs and escorts we have.
Cripes, ‘next to nothing to send to the Pacific to help the USA in a conflict with China’. Do you mean other than a CSG which has been exercised in the area twice since 2021?…and possibly even a second carrier if not ‘in the yard’. As for the point that not every ship in the CSG is RN/RFA, well that is not unusual. Most countries fielding a CSG include allied ships – even the USN has often done so. All NATO Standing Naval Forces are multi-national.
As for the army Corps for the European theatre, NATO does not expect the UK to provide a full Corps (just as well as we have not had one since 1992). The UK provides the Commander, the framework HQ, two divisions, many Corps Troops and enablers for the ARRC – other nations make up the difference. ARRC has always been a MN Corps.
I am not minimising the problems and shortfalls our Forces have – all three services need rebuilding, especially the army. We would certainly have next to no army troops to send to the Far East, except maybe the Ghurka units in Brunei, if the Sultan agreed to their re-deployment. It would not be wise to lose 16 AA Bde from the European Theatre.
Agree but the UK has a £3 trillion governmental sovereign debt and is running a huge deficit still. Most likely due to spaffing hundreds of billions away on working age benefits, pensions triple lock etc. welfare reforms, public sector efficiency drive urgently needed.
The bill for housing 90,000+ illegal economic migrants in hotels is around £12-14 billion per annum and growing not forgetting the pledged social housing boost is almost certainly going to become consumed by the need to house these illegal economic migrants.
The NHS for example could easily save £20 billion per annum just by cutting the bloated bureaucracy and pumping that saving directly back into more operations, more capacity, more clinicians. Startlingly fact. For every clinician working in the NHS there is now a beaurocrat.
To get the defence forces we need will either take huge tax rises. Income tax will go up 2p/ pound at the budget.
We are ALL about to become significantly poorer.
“This Administration would like to see the UK take on a stronger leadership role in NATO—not just on spending but on rallying other allies to do more on European security issues—and contribute to NATO missions.”
It is not for any American to dictate or even suggest the UK’s global and regional defence posture.
Speranza is a Defence analyst as far as I can tell and not a spokesperson for the US Administration. However, assuming her ‘take’ is correct it suggests that the UK is rather ‘keeping below the radar’, not pulling its weight and needs to do more. On spending, it was Cameron who tabled, when chairing the NATO conference in Wales in 2014, that all NATO nations should hit a 2% target; that may be ancient history but we started the ball rolling – HMG today is committed to 2.5 or 2.6% from April 2027 and to meet the 5% figure put out by Rutte (3.5% of GDP on defence and a further 1.5% on “defence-related expenditure”) in the next Parliament.
I don’t know how influential we would be at persuading other ENATO nations to increase their defence expenditure – Trump and Rutte have done a pretty good job in that regard so far.
As for contributing to NATO missions, I can’t think of a NATO mission in which the UK has not been involved, and we have often put in as much resource and effort as other ENATO members.
Reality is we need to be able to refocus to anywhere globally that threatens our national interests. The U.K. has sensibly always tried to do this with allies.
Unfortunately our most powerful ally isn’t as reliable as it once was.
Good for them.
The UK should however have it’s own defence policy and not give two rats what the US wants. We have had to back them up time and time again over the last many years and many US caused wars, and yet we get slapped with tarrifs. Next time they need us to help justify their war, we need to get our pound of flesh from it. Special relationship needs to be two way thing. We haven’t even managed to get UK missiles integrated into the f35 as a tier 1 partner, which clearly shows the word partner means we take your money and you get nothing.