The government has acknowledged concerns over European reliance on United States military capabilities, but stopped short of committing the UK to leading the replacement of specific US systems should Washington reduce its presence.
In its recent report, the Defence Committee warned that an orderly transition of responsibilities would only be possible if the US could see credible European investment in defence capabilities. The committee argued that “the US needs to see European investment in defence capabilities for there to be any chance of an orderly transition of responsibilities”, and called on the government to assess where the UK could lead in replacing US capabilities if they were withdrawn.
It also urged ministers to strengthen links between NATO and EU defence initiatives, particularly those outlined in the EU’s ReArm Europe Plan and Readiness 2030, in order to increase crossover between NATO and EU capability development.The committee concluded that the government must “play a leading role and expend every effort to hold the NATO Alliance together.”
In response, the government reaffirmed its commitment to what it described as a “NATO First” approach, stating that collective defence through the Alliance remains central to UK force design and capability planning.The response said ministers are “considering where to prioritise investment to meet our responsibilities to the Alliance”, including examining “areas where NATO is most reliant on US capabilities” and potential UK involvement in EU capability development programmes.
However, it added that “choices regarding these priorities will be detailed in the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan (DIP)”, leaving decisions on specific capability leadership roles unresolved for now. The government also highlighted structural changes intended to improve interoperability across the Alliance. It said that within the Military Strategic Headquarters, the Chief of the Defence Staff has appointed an interoperability champion to deliver the Strategic Defence Review’s recommendation for a UK NATO Interoperability Roadmap. Ministers pointed to early progress, noting that “the UK’s Carrier Strike Group was recently placed under NATO command, integrated into both Alliance operational and tactical command and control systems.”
On European defence integration, the government welcomed EU efforts to strengthen defence readiness, including the Defence Readiness 2030 roadmap, but stressed that such initiatives must remain aligned with NATO. The response said it was “crucial that these initiatives are designed to complement NATO’s role.”
While acknowledging that negotiations have not resulted in full UK participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) mechanism, ministers said British industry would still retain limited access. According to the response, UK companies will be able to participate in SAFE contracts “under standard third-country terms”, providing up to “35% of their content.”
The government added that it would continue seeking deeper defence industrial cooperation with European partners through the UK–EU Security and Defence Partnership, and said it is “actively partnering with European nations to leverage the strengths of British industry in delivering European security.”
It cited recent defence agreements reached since the election with Norway, Turkey, Germany and France as evidence of this approach.
Yes, I’m not sure how Europe could possibly replace four fighter squadrons and two infantry brigades that the US has stationed in Europe.
Even the US national security strategy states the threat from Russia is diminished and Europe can look after itself already except for nuclear weapons.
We need to put an end to this defeatist nonsense that the US is guarding Europe.
It’s more about logistics, maintenance, satellites and intelligence gathering. For example lots of NATO countries are buying F-35s, but these all depend on the US for maintaining their stealth coating. Or the US controls half the world’s military satellites, while most NATO members have none.
You forgot to include the USN in the Atlantic, airbases across mainland Europe and what they can surge from the US in terms of tanker, bomber and recon forces.
Just because the US NSS says the threat from Russia has diminished, doesn’t mean that the threat from Russia is diminished……
We need to put an end to this defeatist nonsense which claims Russia isn’t a threat
The US maintains a Cavalry Brigade and an Airborne Brigade on a permanent basis in Europe, along with a Division on rotation in Poland. But alongside that the US also has 6 Logistics and Support Brigades and 5 independent Logistics Battalions, 3 Military Police Brigades, 3 Artillery and Air Defence Brigades, a signal brigade and 3 signals battalions, a medical brigade and an indipendent medical battalion, and an Engineering brigade. It also has Divisional scale Medical and Logistics HQ’s stationed in Europe.
Additionally US Army’s III Corps is subordinated to USAEUR which brings 2 Armoured Divisions, and Infantry Division, 2 MP Brigades, a Cavalry Brigade, an Engineering Brigade, a signal brigade, a artillery brigade, a signal brigade and another medical brigade.
The loss of 4 Divisions and 3 separate Brigades stings, but in Europe there are enough fighting formations that it isn’t the end of the world. But the loss of 22 Brigades of Corps and Field Army level enablers would be hard to replace.
The issue has always been: Europe can generate a lot of combat power, but that force is designed to slot into American 3* and higher formations. Part of the problem is that no single NATO country needs 22 CS and CSS Brigades and two CSS Divisional HQ’s, but combined we do. So who foots the bill for formations that they do not need in their national orbat?
Jim mate! It’s not about what the US assets that are in Europe now but the huge logistic capabilities of virtually endless resupply. American stocks are vast in comparison to any nation on Earth and there is little hope of getting anywhere near matching it in the near/longterm future.
Acknowledgement but no committment . Sounds about right for UK defence. Very much like talk but no orders.
Defence Investment Plan… seems everything waits on review after review, plan afterplan, but nothing gets done! Europe needs more nuclear warheads (to deter – already enough to basically destroy Russian capabilities!), we need more frigates/destroyers (fitted for and equipped), the army needs artillery and.. well lots but not the main need – Europe already has enough ground forces available. UK needs homeland air defences and we all need to sort out the satelite situation so we aren’t dependent on the US.
The fact is, we don’t need reviews or plans. We know what is needed – we need action.
So nothing at all new beyond the usual word salad.
We’ve been NATO first since NATO began, but it sounds good so HMG trot that out anyway.
We are a hollowed out nation with really limited military capability and huge gaps in our ability to defend the island we live on.
If I hear again the DIP has been delayed then the CDS and the VCDS plus CJO should resign together.
This is a crisis and worse than the 1930s….
The aircraft carriers are part of the problem. They have drained the RN of resources, forcing the Navy to dispose of much needed frigates and have diverted personnel and money away from other areas. We don’t need them; they are a vanity and prestige item only with no credible role.
The wider issue is that Labour absolutely does not care about Defence. Plenty of Labour MPs view Defence as an obstacle to socialism (read Forsyth’s Fourth Protocol for an insight in that). Even moderate Labour MPs would rather plough money into the obsolete, laughing-stock NHS and welfare, than commit to Defence spending.