Hegseth’s Reckoning in Brussels

Hegseth did not appear in Brussels as a patient custodian of the alliance. He accused European partners of having relied on American security guarantees for too long. NATO had been a “paper tiger” and a one-way street for far too long, he said. That was now over.

He was particularly scathing about countries that had refused the US access to military bases or overflight rights during the war against Iran. Hegseth called their conduct “shameful”. Some allies had endangered American troops by withholding reliable access to their territory and airspace, he argued. He did not name them, but European reports pointed to Spain’s refusal to open its airspace to US military jets involved in the Iran mission. France and Italy reportedly denied access to bases for American bombers, while Britain allowed only limited use of its bases and airspace.

Hegseth broadened his criticism to include Europe’s political priorities. Rather than investing in tanks, fighter aircraft and air defense, many countries had spent too long focusing on climate policy, equality and defense cuts. Europe’s borders had been thrown wide open, welfare states had expanded and defense budgets had fallen. In Brussels, such remarks did not sound like diplomatic routine. They sounded like an American administration no longer willing to spare Europe’s self-image.

That leaves Europe in an uncomfortable position because Hegseth is not merely talking. The review is intended to produce tangible consequences. The Pentagon chief said that some allies would fail the test. Those that Washington believes are falling short on defense spending, access to bases or political support must expect less reliable backing from the US in the future.

Rutte sought to soften the tone. The US had made clear that it remained committed to NATO, he said. At the same time, Europeans and Canadians would have to shoulder more of the burden of conventional defense. America’s nuclear deterrent would remain reliable. His comments sounded reassuring but did not resolve the fundamental problem. Europe must now develop capabilities that it has relied on the US to provide for decades.

https://twitter.com/USAmbNATO/status/2067672269619408933

Europe’s Defense Bill Comes Due

Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken spoke of difficult talks over how the remaining gaps could be filled and by whom. Germany, Belgium and other NATO states will now have to determine which US-provided capabilities they can replace at short notice. That will be particularly difficult in areas such as strategic bombers, reconnaissance drones, long-range weapons and maritime surveillance.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called for a road map setting out any possible US reductions. Some capabilities would be difficult to replace quickly, he said. That is precisely the weak point. Europe can approve higher defense spending. It can sign summit declarations and promise new targets for 2035. None of that produces a drone, an air-defense system or a long-range precision weapon any faster.

At the last summit, NATO members pledged to US President Donald Trump that they would invest 5% of their economic output in defense and security each year by 2035 at the latest. The previous target was 2%. Hegseth made clear in Brussels that Washington no longer regarded such commitments as polite declarations of intent.

Rutte described Europe’s dependence in unusually candid terms. He said it was strange that Europe still needed so much help from a country eight hours away by air, with a population of 350 million, to defend itself against a country of 140 million. He was referring to Russia. The remark captures the heart of the NATO debate better than many of the technical details.

Europe’s comfortable post-Cold War era is now coming to an end. Defense budgets were cut, armed forces reduced and industrial capacity dismantled, while the American presence remained as an insurance policy. Trump and Hegseth are now tightening the terms of that policy. They are not dismantling the security umbrella, but making it more conditional.

The timing is particularly sensitive. Russia is continuing its war against Ukraine. European armed forces are replenishing their ammunition stocks only slowly. The defense industry is struggling with supply chains, skilled-labor shortages and political procedures. At the same time, Europe is under pressure to show quickly and convincingly that it can shoulder a greater share of the burden of deterrence.