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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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…
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.