Azerbaijan.US
Europe has reopened a fundamental debate over its future security architecture, driven by the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war, political uncertainty in the United States, and renewed questions about Washington’s long-term role in European defense.
At the center of the discussion is a familiar but increasingly urgent question: Can Europe defend itself without the United States?
Some European politicians argue that the answer lies in creating a unified European army, capable of acting independently of Washington and providing the continent with strategic autonomy. The idea has gained traction amid concerns over unpredictable U.S. politics and statements by Donald Trump suggesting that allies who “do not pay enough” should not expect automatic protection.
However, NATO leadership has reacted sharply. Alliance Secretary General Mark Rutte has openly opposed the idea, warning that a separate European army would be a strategic mistake and, in his words, “the decision that would please Putin the most.”
Rutte’s argument rests on three main points. First, duplication. NATO already has established command structures, planning mechanisms, and rapid-response forces. Building a parallel European army would require recreating much of this infrastructure, wasting both time and resources.
Second, cost. According to Rutte, if Europe truly intended to defend itself without the U.S., even defense spending at 5% of GDP would not be enough. Real autonomy could push costs toward 8-10% of GDP, especially if Europe sought to build its own nuclear deterrence.
Third, strategic fragmentation. Instead of 32 countries operating within a single alliance, Europe would risk creating two parallel security systems, weakening coordination and creating gaps that Russia could exploit.
Rutte’s core message is clear: Europe must spend more on defense – but within NATO, not outside it.
Supporters of a European army counter that reliance on the U.S. has become increasingly risky. They argue that Europe needs the ability to make security decisions independently and see a common army as both a political symbol and a practical tool.
Analysts suggest such a force could focus on rapid reaction units, strengthening eastern borders, standardizing weapons systems, and conducting crisis-management or peacekeeping missions. Yet many of these functions already exist within NATO frameworks.
The most critical difference remains the nuclear umbrella. Today, Europe’s ultimate security guarantee is provided by the United States. Without it, the balance of power – and the cost of deterrence – would change dramatically.
Europe now faces a strategic choice: continue collective security with the United States or pursue a more independent, but significantly more expensive and risky path. While NATO leaders insist European security is impossible without the alliance, declining trust in Washington ensures that the debate over a European army is far from over.
