‘We still love you’: NATO envoy seeks to reassure Europe over US military pullback

A more Europeanised NATO means European allies would take greater responsibility for defending their own territory. The United States would remain committed to Europe, but its forces and strategic attention would be less concentrated there. The model is called NATO 3.0. It matters because Europe must build stronger capabilities as American military resources are redirected elsewhere.

At the Warsaw Security Forum, Andrius Kubilius said Europe needed to develop the ability to deter aggression on its own territory. Matthew Whitaker said the United States “isn't stepping back” and that the push for a stronger European role was working. The change is therefore about responsibility, not an announced end to the alliance.

The transition is incomplete. The Pentagon is reviewing deployments, while Europe is raising defence spending and seeking stronger capabilities by 2030. However, a leaked European Defence Agency report found major gaps, especially in drone defences and maritime warfare. Those weaknesses could slow NATO 3.0.

US military changes in Europe are already under way, even before the Pentagon completes its broader deployment review. Washington is examining how to shift resources toward other regions. This matters because Europe may have to replace important American forces and capabilities while also preparing for a stronger Russian threat.

In May, the Pentagon ordered approximately 5,000 troops withdrawn from Germany. It also cancelled a planned deployment of a long-range fires battalion. These measures reduce the American military footprint and remove a planned capability. Whitaker declined to preview additional steps because the review was not ready.

The review is expected to conclude by December and go to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Its findings could pave the way for more reductions across the continent, including key strategic assets. The scale and timing remain unsettled, but the article makes clear that the shift has already started.

Replacing American contributions would require both money and manpower on a very large scale. Andrius Kubilius estimated that Europe might spend up to €500 billion replacing US strategic military assets. Experts also suggested that European countries could need 300,000 additional troops to defend themselves against Russia if Washington continued withdrawing support.

The figures describe two linked needs. Strategic assets include high-value military capabilities that Europe may not currently possess in sufficient quantity. Additional troops would expand the forces available for territorial defence. Together, they show why a more Europeanised NATO is not simply a political slogan. It requires major investment and recruitment.

The numbers are estimates, and the article does not present them as final targets. Europe is increasing defence spending and seeking stronger military capabilities by 2030. Yet reported gaps in drone defences and maritime warfare show that replacing US support could take time, even with greater budgets.

NATO members agreed to raise their core defence spending target from 2% to 3.5% of GDP by 2035. They also agreed to devote a further 1.5% to broader security and defence spending. The combined expectation is therefore 5% of GDP. This matters because the alliance is asking Europe and other allies to build more capability as US forces potentially decline.

Matthew Whitaker described the overall 5% target as what the United States expects from all its allies. Poland illustrated the effort already under way. Whitaker said it was spending 4.7% on core defence and leading the alliance toward a stronger military. Poland is among NATO’s highest core-defence spenders.

The target does not mean every country is currently at 5%. It is a commitment for 2035, with core defence and wider security counted separately. Whether spending closes capability gaps remains uncertain. The article notes particular weaknesses in drone defences and maritime warfare.

Deterrence depends on having enough credible military strength to discourage aggression. If American troops and strategic capabilities leave faster than Europe can replace them, NATO’s European members could appear less able to defend their territory. The article presents this as a serious risk because European intelligence agencies warn that Russia could pose a more direct threat in coming years.

The scale of the possible shortfall is substantial. Kubilius estimated that replacing US strategic military assets could cost Europe up to €500 billion. Experts also suggested 300,000 additional troops might be needed to defend against Russia in a continued US withdrawal scenario. These figures show the potential burden of a rapid transition.

Europe is responding with higher spending and plans to strengthen capabilities by 2030. But a leaked European Defence Agency report identified major gaps in drone defences and maritime warfare. If those weaknesses persist, spending increases may not immediately create reliable deterrence.

The United States is redirecting military resources toward other regions, including the Indo-Pacific. The stated reason is China’s growing influence. This matters for Europe because forces, equipment and strategic attention are limited. A stronger focus on China can coincide with a smaller US military presence on the European continent.

The article connects this shift to Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Since then, Washington has sought to redirect resources toward the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, the Pentagon is reviewing its deployments in Europe. The review could recommend further reductions, although its conclusions are not yet known.

This does not mean Washington says it no longer supports Europe. Whitaker insisted that the United States remains committed to European defence. Instead, the policy points toward a different division of labour: Europe would take the lead in conventional defence while the United States gives more attention to countering China.

Deterrence is the effort to prevent aggression by convincing a potential attacker that the consequences will outweigh any possible gains. Military capability, readiness and political unity make the threat credible. In NATO’s collective-defence system, an attack on one ally is treated as a threat to all, creating the expectation of a shared response.

The article applies this idea to Europe’s need to deter aggression on its own territory. Kubilius argued that European countries must develop stronger capabilities as US forces draw down. If allies have enough troops, equipment and strategic assets, an opponent must account for a stronger combined defence before acting.

NATO’s challenge is maintaining that credibility during a transition. The United States says it remains committed, but Europe may need up to €500 billion for strategic assets and possibly 300,000 more troops. Capability gaps in drone defences and maritime warfare could weaken deterrence until they are addressed.