NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has dismissed calls for a standalone European defence force, warning that Europe cannot defend itself without the United States and that attempts to go it alone would only weaken collective security.
Speaking in Brussels during a joint session of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Security and Defence committees, Rutte argued that talk of a separate “European pillar” risks confusion, duplication and strategic distraction. He said the concept was often poorly defined, cautioning that creating parallel military structures would complicate command arrangements and drain already stretched manpower.
“A European pillar is a bit of an empty word,” Rutte said, adding that proposals resembling a European defence force would duplicate NATO structures and make coordination harder. “You have to find the men and women in uniform on top of what is happening already. It will make things more complicated. I think Putin will love it.”
Instead, he said Europe and NATO should focus on a clear division of labour, with NATO leading on command and control, capability development and standard-setting, while the European Union strengthens resilience, industrial capacity, regulation and defence financing mechanisms. Rutte was also outspoken in his assessment of transatlantic dependence, rejecting suggestions that Europe could secure itself independently of Washington.
“If anyone thinks that Europe can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming. You can’t. We can’t. We need each other,” he said.
He argued that even dramatically increased European defence spending would not close the gap, particularly in nuclear deterrence. “If you really want to go it alone, forget that you can ever get there with 5%. It will be 10%. You would have to build your own nuclear capability, costing billions and billions,” he said, warning that such a path would mean losing the US nuclear umbrella. Rutte also pushed back against claims that the United States is drifting away from NATO, insisting Washington remains fully committed to Article Five collective defence.
He credited President Donald Trump with fundamentally reshaping NATO defence spending, despite acknowledging that such praise would be unpopular with parts of his audience. “The fact that all NATO countries reached 2% by the end of 2025 would never, ever have happened without Trump,” he said. “Do you really think Spain, Italy, Belgium or Canada would have moved from 1.5 to 2% without him? No way.”
Rutte said the defence spending commitments agreed at the Hague summit, including a 5% benchmark combining core defence and security-related investment, had removed Washington’s long-standing frustration over burden sharing. He pointed to Germany as a key example, noting that Berlin’s defence budget is set to rise from around €70 billion in 2021 to roughly €160 billion by 2029, reaching 3.5% core defence spending as part of the wider 5% commitment. Canada, he added, was also “back” as a serious contributor, committing to increased spending and expanded support for Ukraine.
Rutte concluded that NATO remains indispensable not only for Europe, but for the United States itself, citing shared interests in the Arctic, the Euro-Atlantic and wider strategic stability. “The US has every interest in NATO, just as Europe and Canada do,” he said, arguing that transatlantic security remains indivisible despite shifting global pressures.
Is this really true?
Air Conventional – I cannot see Russia lasting five minutes against the existing European air forces.
Air Drone – harder to say as the tech edge isn’t so marked.
Air Anti Drone – about Lo-Lo / Lo / Hi-Lo mixes of anti drone that can secure a huge area. Rapid investment in numbers of medium calibre AAW weapons is indicated as well as other measures.
Surface Naval – Russia wouldn’t last long as its assets would be taken out by air power.
Submarine Forces – this is the greatest threat but again I can’t see this lasting long with the amount of P8 and UDJ g Merlin etc flown from carriers or RFA to prosecute. Our lack of ASW frigates is terrible but there are other ways.
Land forces – mixed pictures. EuNATO has a massive technical and training overmatch. As well as air supremacy. The issue is the industrial endurance to keep fighting at a tech edge and not degenerate into trench warfare.
GBAD – EuNATO has a clear tech edge but the manufacturing rates are the Achilles heel. Never mind the tiny numbers of launchers in service.
It’s utter bollox is what it is. Of course Europe could defend itself what an utterly bizarre self defeating statement to make.
Would it be expensive yes
Would western power evaporate without a tight U.S. European alliance yes
But
Is a set of allied nations with a population of 550 million and and a gross national product of around 30 trillion a year able to defend itself against a nation of 140 million people and a gross national production of 2.7 trillion a year.. of course it can, to say otherwise is the high of delusion.
Is it appropriate for the set of alliances to not develop the full range of military capabilities and be dependent for much of it on one body politic ( the U.S.) which has proven to be potentially an unreliable and unpredictable ally. NO.
This is a man who’s job it is to keep the whole NATO alliance together.. Europe and U.S..but selling the old story of European dependence on the U.S. is not the way to do it.. they only way Europe and the US have a chance of staying allies is via a peer on peer relationship not a Co dependent one.
How many nuclear warheads does Russia have? Yes it’s conventional forces would get shredded, though without SEAD and long range cruise missiles deep strikes into Ru would be limited.
One nuke over EU territory and the socialists and Greens run for cover and surrender.
You really think it would stay unified?
It’s not how many you have it’s how many you need.. even now Europe could put 200-300 nuclear warheads into russia.. that is MAD.no nation state survives 200-300 warheads.
And in regards to the U.S. nuclear umbrella.. do you think for a single moment that the present US would ever in a million years suffer the risk of a MAD response from Russia for a European nation.. NO it would NOT
That is why Europe must have its own effective deterrent.. and it does not need 2000 warheads to match Russia it just needs the amount to convince Putin Russia will die.
So your question is about politic will not capability and I would say the U.S. has far far less political will to defend Europe than Europe has…
So are you counting just French warheads? Because without NATO what agreement would there be to offer ours? It would be an EU effort .
Ru doctrine is the use of tactical weapons. European resolve would fold , it would not lead to the one French SSN releasing 16 missiles. French has missiles on Rafale for the tactical lower level escalation.
Again, who orders the firing, Macron or his replacement or Ursula? Weak command.
it’s the US that keeps the balance of power , a decision of POTUS and the Ru know that.
Then we are screwed. The US will never respond to nuclear attacks on Europe, the only real doubt in Putin’s mind would be the death of large amounts of US personnel in Europe, this is something that Trump intends to remove when he feels he can, his successors on the right, certainly Vance will strive to stop our nuclear cooperation, which means we had better all get prepared to defend ourselves essentially without the US. Trump’s insults to Europe is internally aimed to set the scene for withdrawal, is that not obvious enough? It’s why he wants to separate Greenland from Europe and NATO get real. That’s why I am doubting Rutte is the right man for the job much longer certainly beyond another year or so when his pathetic toadying up might just still have some sway, but like Chamberlain but in reality Trump doesn’t respect such behaviour. But either way it’s essential now that as much unified European deterrence at every level be built up immediately, words to the contrary dismissing European independence is not only naive and self defeating but down right stupid, hopefully Rutte inside knows that but these words suggest otherwise to me as it shows he doesn’t understand the new World developing and he is overplaying a weakening and uninspiring personal hand. If the MAGA movement or what follows survives its present self destruction (which in itself could weaken US power, influence and the deterrence effect anyway) it will double down on its deluded understanding of America alone and survival thinking it can ignore World events as it stupidly thought in 1939. So like it or not Europe has at best a 50/50 chance of being alone, so we had better understand that threat learn to survive on our own for the most part. It’s why Ukraine is so vital they have the most effective conventional army in Europe presently and we will need them.
The biggest question is how we all build our own nuclear deterrence, we better be talking to France about that and then more widely with other European powers.
The big sell to the UK electorate is when we say we will use them and why. Does a nuclear alliance end the days of new EU members because all those lined up are on Putin’s doorstep.
Scenario. Belarus populace revolts against Regime. Courted by EU with offer of EU membership.
Putin says fuck that, sends in troops from east, EU responds with troops from west. They clash.
Is Britain and by default it’s deterrent also at war with Ru?
Can’t see the British electorate having that.
10 million dead so the EU can expand.
The idea French présidents have a weak command and relying on potus is quite funny considering the last 10 days.
Bit of a stupid statement while Ukraine albeit with a fair amount of financial and material support from close allies have held off Putin’s hordes for 4 years now.
Indeed, our only real weakness is in the nuclear domain and how events in the US may weaken that. We may only have about ten years to decide how we deal with an absent US on that front, or be powerfully enough to gain their respect which with the MAGA lot is the only way they will feel it important to remain aligned with us. My enemy’s enemy and all that.
The moment Putin threatens the use of nukes , defeat or not would depend if the French leader was willing to sacrifice one of his cities for a chunk of Estonia.
Personally I would want to stay out of any EU effort and I wouldn’t sacrifice Portsmouth to save a chunk of Lithuanian territory from being taken.
He is correct, hundreds if not thousands of warheads with survivable deployment would need to be developed, and who would hold the suitcase? Ursula VDL?
Mad Vlad has threatened nukes many times.
Given that every other weapons system he has used has been defeated by western tech can you imagine the emperors new clothes moment when a nuc of his was defeated?
Like their SSN fleet, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate their nuclear capability.
Can we rely on ours getting airborne 100%, the boats are getting thrashed waiting for Dreadnought.
So you are actually advocating splitting Europe up into small nation states.. and letting Russia gobble them up one by one.. so your not only advocating the dismantling of NATO but the dismantling of any European Co operation.. essentially doing exactly what is needed if we all want to speak russian in a generation.
Have you not noticed how fractured UK politics is, let alone EU
Zac the toy whisperer on 16% wants to have a chat with Putin to give up nukes. The red hard labour lot would scrap them,
Reform on 24% are not going to offer out nukes as protection for the geo political aims of the EU
Even if one coalition did , it would be reversed at the next GE.
NATO folds means proliferation.
If German can pursuade it’s electorate , a tough one, it will get nukes.
Poland and Turkey too.
But forming a one for all alliance? Harder than you think.
Personally I’d get the boffins at Aldermaston to make a nuke for Tempest and develop a road mobile MRBM like Pershing 2.
But offer that umbrella to the EU? No thanks.
And it’s not 1000s of warheads.. 100 warheads in Germany. 100 in Poland and added to the UK and french deterrent you have a deterrent Russia would not dream of engaging with..
So you assume Britain outside the EU would offer ours and agree to MAD?
The left of the labour party? The Greens? reform?
Would anyone win a referendum on that?
Yes because if NATO failed the Uk would join a European version of NATO.. because if it didn’t it would be profoundly isolated.
Absolutely. Even PooTin knows there is enough retaliatory nuclear capability in European NATO to virtually destroy the main population centers of Mother Russia to make a nuclear exchange unthinkable.
No one is going to launch a sub full of SLBMs in response to a tactical nuke.
The marches and civil protest in Europe will mean a collapse of resolve.
That’s why deterrence works when it run from Washington.
Why are you so convinced that Washington has a greater degree of care what happens in Europe than European nations.
Then as I say if that attitude indeed prevails Europe is finished one way or another we become client states of Russia maybe China effectively paying tribute. So we better work hard to put enough doubt in Putin’s mind. Personally being able to take out around 12 Russian European cities would effectively destroy Russia as a power where China and US are involved, so would be deterrent enough to him risking it, it sure has been so even now in Ukraine when he knows the US would not respond so there’s good hope if we further develop nuclear deterrence. One has to understand Putin’s actions have been as much about shoring itself up against a growing China as its so called defence in Europe. It knows where the future conflict will be and the rest is a sideshow to prepare against that risk, break the NATO alliance weaken European resolve and its unity and exploit European technology. Problem is much of that ties in with MAGA too, selling out Europe if it breaks China and Russia, take control of all of the Americas to create a fortress and hope you can exploit the rest of the World and zones of influence to agree big power settlements to maintain stability on their terms. Europe has no independent role in that plan than to be cut up and sold or in any conflict as with WW2 damage both Europe and Russia by selling arms to make profit out of events while the warring parties are weakened. Then it’s merely the two powers (Pitt and Napoleon style) carving out the World in the hope of keeping each happy. Get real Europe has no future in this World unless we can defend ourselves alone at some point whatever convenient alliances like the China/Russia one can bring us in the meantime and even thereafter. We are a mere pawn and I hope Rutte beneath his sickening compliance realises the true game he is in.
Has proper Operational Analysis been done to ‘wargame’ ENATO/Canada being able to currently take on depleted Russian forces in say, the 2026-2028 period and also on a future ENATO/Canada (with increased defence spend kicking in) taking on a somewhat rehabilitated Russian forces after that period?
If not, shouldn’t Rutte do that before making his statement?
Absolutely-bloody-lutely. If he is saying what he believes we are in even bigger trouble than I feared. There is simply no assured future safety in the North Atlantic Alliance, yes patch it up as best you can (though calling Trump daddy isn’t a positive method in my view) for as long as you can, we might be able to extend it into the next Administration as long as it’s Democrat but thereafter it’s madness to think it will be reliable. So we need to plan for a European alliance now whatever the problems because we will be tested after Ukraine and the US won’t under Trump or his ilk give a damn only encouraging Russia.
We also have to understand that Canada’s big commitment to defence has as much to do with the threat of US invasion as it does supporting NATO, perhaps more. The US is in that period where they are trying to weaken it economically to make territorial claims already don on the waterways and eventually force it to comply as a compliant State or become part of the US peacefully or otherwise. Unlikely especially as Canada has totally outsmarted Trump but the longer term aim if Trump gets a third term or his lackeys are in control after him. Plan going bad at the moment but plenty of new pages to turn yet and as his minions are freely doing things that will get them imprisoned even they must have some concept of democracy not being expected to return to judge them.
I think this individual is so focused on survival of NATO that he is not really seeing what is in front of him.. Yes what is optional for the west is a Co-dependent Europe and US.. that are using their defence, dollars, pounds and euros to maximum efficiency.. by sharing and covering specific areas.. but that requires a level of political lockstep that simply no longer exists and is fairyland geopoliticals to think it is.
Maybe he is just playing the game to keep NATO ticking as long as it can.. but pretending that European does not now need to be Geostrategically independent of the U.S. is geostrategic make believe.
So by all means keep NATO ticking until the point of Geostrategic independence and at that point have a serious conversation between the US and Europe about what a new peer on peer alliance would look like.. but to advocate maintaining dependence while there is massive political shifts going on is a bit to much like hope over potential worst case reality and defence always needs to based on worst case reality not hope… hope is for arts and sport.
Optimal not optional…
Ultimately he is trying to keep the Tangerine Toddler ‘Daddy’ vaguely onside.
Rutte is a clown and a mouthpiece for US interest. It became pretty clear after he called Trump his “Daddy”
That imbecile seems unaware that Ukraine has been defending itself from Russia since 2022, while the US stopped sending aid under Biden, when Congress put a stop to it.
Europe has picked up the slack and has been increasing both its budgets and manufacturing rates.
You are mistaking a professional factual analysis for what is IRL a desperate attempt at trying to keep the Tangerine Toddler ‘Daddy’ vaguely inside.
At the outset Germany wouldn’t let the RAF over fly with NLAW.
The EU nations shit themselves about tanks until 14 C2 went.
Germans still shit themselves about Taurus.
The EU alliance could replace US backed NATO my arse.
I agree with him on its a waste of time if your talking an EU duplication and splitting from NATO.
If he is talking Europe as a continent then yes we could fight anyone but China, yes we lack logistics and long range strike but we are working on that. Europe will not forget what trump has done and I think US in the future will regret this.
I suppose the trouble will come as more green/Left wing parties come to power in Europe, will they remember the lessons from Trump
There is actually a general drift to the right in Europe.
Perhaps it’s time for a new secretary general who can smell the coffee and actually plan for European defence without an unreliable ‘ally’ across the pond!
There are plenty of ex American generals who are warning don’t count on the US to come riding over the hill to our defence with this nobber in the WH!
As for the nukes why are we getting F35A for weapons that will NEVER get release from US control!
The F35A RAF nuclear role never made a lot of sense.
Even less sense now!
I do wonder if the Eurofighter consortium might need to do some rapid qualification work. You get to a point where sovereignty trumps ££££ [pun intended].
Tempest is the aircraft for the role. Almost as if intended and I suspect it’s range and payload was specced for when Japan enters the nuclear club
The other 31 countries cannot rely on their defence from an erratic American president who sees article 5 not as an unconditional call to aide a country under attack but as an opportunity for leverage to extract a concession.
Your job Mr Secretary is to build a NATO of 32 equal partners not USA plus 31.
You need to do your job and set NATO on a path of being independent of your “ Daddy” where the USA are the icing not the cake itself.
Not as if he hasn’t made threats to two member countries either,Greenland/ Denmark & Canada which as a realm of HM’s kingdom would drag us in whatever the others do!