Several NATO member states are reportedly formulating military strategies in anticipation of a potential withdrawal of the United States from the alliance or a blockage of collective defense mechanisms. Insights from senior military officials across various nations indicate a growing concern over U.S. commitment to NATO.
The urgency for these plans was heightened by former President Donald Trump’s January remarks regarding the possible annexation of Greenland, a territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. A Swedish defense official noted, “The crisis in Greenland was a wake-up call. We realized we needed a Plan B.”
In early May, 4,000 soldiers from the Black Jack armored brigade were preparing for deployment in Poland to bolster NATO’s defenses against perceived Russian threats. However, this deployment was canceled less than two weeks later, marking the second such cancellation within a month. This decision followed Trump’s announcement to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany and to cancel the deployment of a crucial missile unit intended to enhance Europe’s defense posture.
The rationale behind these military adjustments stems from Trump’s frustration over the lack of European support for his administration’s actions in Iran.
NATO operates like a symphonic orchestra, with the United States acting as the conductor. According to Louis Simon from the Free University of Brussels, “U.S. leadership is the glue that holds the alliance together. Without it, we would likely see fragmentation.”
Officials interviewed for this report preferred to remain anonymous due to concerns that discussing these issues could accelerate U.S. disengagement. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has reportedly prohibited discussions on this topic, fearing it may exacerbate tensions.
The core of any alternative structure would likely consist of a coalition of Baltic states, Scandinavia, and Poland. Edward Arnold from the London-based think tank RUSI estimates that about a third of NATO members would engage in combat from the outset, independent of Article 5 obligations. “No one will wait for the Portuguese to arrive at the North Atlantic Council for debates,” he stated.
One of the most viable alternatives to U.S. leadership is the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), led by the United Kingdom. This coalition, comprising ten predominantly Baltic and Scandinavian countries, is headquartered near London. Unlike NATO, the JEF can respond to situations without requiring consensus and possesses its own secure communication networks and nuclear deterrence through the UK.
However, the JEF has notable limitations, including the absence of France, Germany, and Poland. Additionally, one official remarked that the UK suffers from a “Downton Abbey syndrome,” pretending to maintain capabilities while lacking the necessary resources.
It is also worth noting that the Pentagon recently reduced the number of combat brigade groups in Europe from four to three, reverting to levels seen in 2021. This decision aligns with the “America First” agenda, aimed at encouraging NATO allies to assume greater responsibility for continental defense.
NATO member states are increasingly concerned about U.S. commitment to the alliance, prompting the development of contingency military plans. Recent decisions by the U.S. government, including troop withdrawals and canceled deployments, have intensified discussions about alternative defense structures within Europe.