Rutte’s vision of European defense follows a familiar yet increasingly unacceptable logic: nuclear deterrence equals U.S. protection, and U.S. protection equals European security. Therefore, European strategic sovereignty is an illusion.
When NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte stated that Europe cannot defend itself without the U.S. and those who think otherwise should „keep on dreaming,” he did more than describe Europe’s military dependence. He turned this dependence into a political doctrine. Moreover, he positioned himself not so much as the leader of an alliance of potentially equal members, but as a spokesperson for Europe’s strategic resignation.
NATO's chief must promote a more balanced alliance, with a strong European pillar — not undermine it, emphasize Domènec Ruiz Devesa, senior researcher at the Center for International Affairs in Barcelona and former Member of the European Parliament, and Emiliano Alessandri, affiliated researcher at the Austrian Institute for International Affairs, in an opinion article published by Politico.
Rutte's vision of European defense follows a familiar yet increasingly inacceptable logic: nuclear deterrence equals U.S. protection; U.S. protection equals European security; therefore, European strategic sovereignty is an illusion.
However, this chain of reasoning is much more fragile than it seems.
Europe is not condemned to choose between the U.S. umbrella and total vulnerability
Firstly, even though Europe's overall strategic stability depends on nuclear deterrence, most security challenges in the real world within the Euro-Atlantic space, from hybrid operations to limited conventional scenarios, have developed and will continue to develop well below the nuclear threshold.
This is acknowledged by NATO's own deterrence posture. And exaggerating the nuclear dimension risks overlooking the decisive importance of conventional mass, resilience, logistics, high-quality information, air defense, and industrial depth - areas where Europe is weak from a political standpoint.
Furthermore, the nuclear debate in Europe is not binary. The continent is not doomed to choose between total dependence on the U.S. umbrella and total vulnerability.
A serious discussion about the role of French and British deterrence mechanisms within a European framework - politically complex but strategically feasible - is no longer a taboo. And by highlighting the prohibitive cost of developing a European nuclear force from scratch, Rutte's general rejection of Europe's strategic agency in the nuclear domain avoids this evolution rather than engaging in it.
Rutte underestimates Europe's strength
Moreover, the NATO chief is too quick to dismiss the increasingly accepted notion of a "European pillar" within NATO. Certainly, the EU's added value is currently best exemplified in creating a more integrated and dynamic European defense market actively promoted by the European Commission. But Rutte underestimates existing European military capabilities.
European countries already deploy advanced air forces together, world-class submarines, significant naval power, state-of-the-art missile and air defense systems, cyber expertise, space assets, and one of the world's largest defense industrial bases. And when it comes to Ukraine's defense, European allies - including France - have significantly expanded their intelligence contributions.
Therefore, the issue is not so much a deficit but national and industrial fragmentation, coupled with the risk of technological stagnation and insufficient investments in key factors such as ammunition production, military mobility, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, satellites, air-to-air refueling, and integrated command structures.
As demonstrated by satellite projects like the EU's Governmental Satellite Communications and the IRIS² Satellite Constellation, these are areas that can be improved in months and years rather than decades. But telling Europeans that sovereignty is a fantasy can easily kill the political momentum needed to address them.
Cognitive dissonance instead of strategic clarity
Ultimately, oddly enough, Rutte's message is not congruent with Washington's vision either.
American presidents have long urged Europe to take on much greater responsibility for its own defense, and in his second term, President Donald Trump took this message to new heights, from burden-sharing to burden-shifting.
But simultaneously telling Europe that it must take care of itself, as long as it continues to purchase arms made in the U.S., and that it can never truly succeed - that is not strategic clarity but cognitive dissonance, according to Devesa and Alessandri.
Europe can no longer ignore the political reality. Regardless of what one may think about Trump and his disruptive policies, the direction of U.S. foreign policy is unmistakable: Europe is no longer a priority. The strategic gravitational center of the U.S. is now in the Indo-Pacific, and U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere is more important than Europe's defense, explicitly mentioned in the new national security strategy presented by the White House.
What Rutte needs to do
In this context, placing all of Europe's security eggs in the U.S. basket makes no sense, the authors point out.
However, none of this means that Europe would abandon NATO or actively sever transatlantic ties. Rather, it means recognizing that alliances among equal members are stronger than those built on dependency.
A Europe that can rely militarily, industrially, and politically on itself is a more credible and valuable ally. And the 80-year-old transatlantic alliance will endure only if the U.S. and Europe reach a new understanding.
Therefore, as transatlantic allies face a less direct alignment of interests and values, Rutte must promote a more balanced NATO, with a strong European pillar, not undermine it, conclude the two experts.
T.D.