NATO vs Russia
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
As soon as the Russian threat is mitigated one way or another, Europe will go back to its habit pattern of neglecting its defences. It happened after the wall fell so don't try and convince yourself otherwise. Probably end up purchasing Russian energy again as well. A euro defense contractor in the short term might be a good stock to buy, but certainly not for the long term.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 47
Likes: 40
From: UK
Once again WC, who is or comprises this "Europe" you are referring to?
I refer you to my earlier thread on the same:
PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - NATO vs Russia
I refer you to my earlier thread on the same:
PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - NATO vs Russia
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
Step by step, inch by inch.
And NATO nations sit blindly back and do nothing, frozen in the headlights loath to "antagonise" the situation....
And NATO nations sit blindly back and do nothing, frozen in the headlights loath to "antagonise" the situation....
https://x.com/Beefeater_Fella/status...234637688?s=20
Moscow Times reports Russia decided to appeal to the UN court to "protect Russians" in the Baltic states Russia intends to appeal to the International Court of Justice to "protect" the rights of Russians in the Baltic states, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
The ministry claims that the authorities of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia "prohibit" the use of the Russian language, "rewrite history" and engage in "punitive policies of repression and intimidation".
"All attempts to resolve differences through negotiations have been unsuccessful. In this regard, we, obviously, will have to transfer our claims to the judicial process by appealing to the main judicial body of the UN - the International Court," - said a representative of the Foreign Ministry to "Izvestia".
At the same time, Moscow has already appealed to international institutions on this issue. In particular, complaints from the Russian side were received by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.
"The Ministry is conducting systematic work on all possible human rights platforms of the UN," - emphasized in the Foreign Ministry.
Former UN Deputy Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze called Russia's appeal to the court a political step.
"It's hard to predict when the case will be considered and how it will be reviewed. For the first time in the history of the International Court, there is no our judge there," - noted the expert, adding that the court proceedings could last "years".
Moscow Times reports Russia decided to appeal to the UN court to "protect Russians" in the Baltic states Russia intends to appeal to the International Court of Justice to "protect" the rights of Russians in the Baltic states, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
The ministry claims that the authorities of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia "prohibit" the use of the Russian language, "rewrite history" and engage in "punitive policies of repression and intimidation".
"All attempts to resolve differences through negotiations have been unsuccessful. In this regard, we, obviously, will have to transfer our claims to the judicial process by appealing to the main judicial body of the UN - the International Court," - said a representative of the Foreign Ministry to "Izvestia".
At the same time, Moscow has already appealed to international institutions on this issue. In particular, complaints from the Russian side were received by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.
"The Ministry is conducting systematic work on all possible human rights platforms of the UN," - emphasized in the Foreign Ministry.
Former UN Deputy Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze called Russia's appeal to the court a political step.
"It's hard to predict when the case will be considered and how it will be reviewed. For the first time in the history of the International Court, there is no our judge there," - noted the expert, adding that the court proceedings could last "years".
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Shows how desperate they are when they have to use the toothless UN to help them out of a mess they have created.
Perhaps they have forgotten how the Soviet Union carried out very similar cultural repression in Poland after WW2.
Perhaps they have forgotten how the Soviet Union carried out very similar cultural repression in Poland after WW2.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
Not sure about the desperation, I think they are setting the scene and establishing plausible grounds for an intervention which they can present as a justification arguing that they’d exhausted all other avenues.
See post 4670 - NATO vs Russia
See post 4670 - NATO vs Russia
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Where are they going to find the troops and hardware to stage another SMO in the Baltic states?
They are losing badly in Ukraine and struggling to recruit.
Looks more like desperate posturing to maintain the image of a strong country.
Perhaps it's for the benefit of the domestic audience who can't understand why Moscow and oil infrastructure is being targeted by a 'weak' enemy.
They are losing badly in Ukraine and struggling to recruit.
Looks more like desperate posturing to maintain the image of a strong country.
Perhaps it's for the benefit of the domestic audience who can't understand why Moscow and oil infrastructure is being targeted by a 'weak' enemy.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 373
From: PLanet Earth
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Where are they going to find the troops and hardware to stage another SMO in the Baltic states?
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
They may be stupid but not THAT stupid.
Accept a stalemate in the Donbas and claim a massive victory in claiming back the historical Baltic states and a land corridor to Kaliningrad…..
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,965
Likes: 484
From: The Roman Empire
Ukraine is at the cutting edge of military technology, and has battle hardened/experienced personnel.
Taking on NATO would probably be easier for Russia than fighting with Ukraine, which doesn't, of course, necessarily mean that Russia will elect to do so.
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,761
Likes: 385
Russia is massively arming up and building up modern weaponry storages. The army is built up as well and kept ready to attack with mostly separate, lower profile troops used for the canon fodder meat attacks in Ukraine. Political threats by Russian senior political figures against like every single western country and capital have become routine, including nuke threats. What else do you need to feel concerned?
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,243
Likes: 1,154
From: Central UK
Russia is massively arming up and building up modern weaponry storages. The army is built up as well and kept ready to attack with mostly separate, lower profile troops used for the canon fodder meat attacks in Ukraine. Political threats by Russian senior political figures against like every single western country and capital have become routine, including nuke threats. What else do you need to feel concerned?
We ignore such obvious realities at our existential peril.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 373
From: PLanet Earth
Where are the 10.000 Tanks? On the satellite images of the large storages they have all but disappeared. Aircraft deliveries is in the high single/ low double digit number range. In which parallel universe are these tens of thousands of tanks and hundreds of new aircraft stored? The hundreds of thousands of well trained troops? They pulled specialists from Nuclear forces and Missile/Space forces to Ukraine. And they are stalling in Ukraine since four Years because they don't want to win?! Guys, come on. Seriously. The only thing which they are really putting out in high numbers are Arty shells and Gerans. Everything else saw rather a decline.
The only area where they are for sure still to be feared (besides terror attacks with hundreds of Shaheds/Gerans) is Nuclear. In that area thea have thousands of Warheads in all sizes and as we have seen in Iran shooting barrages of ballistic missiles is hard/impossible to fully intercept. A little question mark is the readiness of these systems. But they have so many that this is still a fundamental risk to mankind.
A scenario could be an invasion into one of the baltics followed by demonstration nuclear strike high over Poland or other countries potentially willing to help combined with the threat that the next one goes to Warsaw or Berlin.
Last edited by henra; 25th May 2026 at 21:01.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
I couldn't agree more. Just because Ruzzia had proved inept in tactic and equipment doesn't mean they haven't learned/aren't learning how to improve tactics and build better equipment. You can bet your sweet ass they are. It's just that this all takes time. The Ruzzia we'll all be facing in 3-5-10 years time will bear ever increasingly little resemblance to the inept hordes ow under equipped peons they field today.
We ignore such obvious realities at our existential peril.
We ignore such obvious realities at our existential peril.
Given little has been seen of this to date, it would require a massive change in dogma to achieve what you’ve indicated their future holds. That said, I don’t share your sense of optimism about the Russian military moving forward, thankfully.
.
Joined: May 2024
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 956
Likes: 1,009
From: Near SOU
Please forgive if this is in the incorrect place, but a strange story has come out of Russia that suggests that an unknown country placed NATO magnetic mines on one of their gas tankers
The ship had travelled from Antwerp to the Russian port of Ust-Luga where the mines were allegedly discovered and deactivated.
More on this : NATO mines detected on LPG tanker in Russian port, investigators say (Baird Maritime / Reuters - May 25, 2026)
The ship had travelled from Antwerp to the Russian port of Ust-Luga where the mines were allegedly discovered and deactivated.
More on this : NATO mines detected on LPG tanker in Russian port, investigators say (Baird Maritime / Reuters - May 25, 2026)
Several NATO-produced magnetic mines had been detected on a tanker in Russia's Baltic Sea port of Ust-Luga, Russia's Investigative Committee said on Monday.
The committee said the mines were found by divers during an inspection of the hull of the tanker Arrhenius, which arrived from Belgium's port of Antwerp to load liquefied petroleum gas.
The committee said the mines were found by divers during an inspection of the hull of the tanker Arrhenius, which arrived from Belgium's port of Antwerp to load liquefied petroleum gas.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 541
From: Lost again...
Please forgive if this is in the incorrect place, but a strange story has come out of Russia that suggests that an unknown country placed NATO magnetic mines on one of their gas tankers
The ship had travelled from Antwerp to the Russian port of Ust-Luga where the mines were allegedly discovered and deactivated.
More on this : NATO mines detected on LPG tanker in Russian port, investigators say (Baird Maritime / Reuters - May 25, 2026)
The ship had travelled from Antwerp to the Russian port of Ust-Luga where the mines were allegedly discovered and deactivated.
More on this : NATO mines detected on LPG tanker in Russian port, investigators say (Baird Maritime / Reuters - May 25, 2026)
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,328
Likes: 2,175
From: Texas
The only area where they are for sure still to be feared (besides terror attacks with hundreds of Shaheds/Gerans) is Nuclear. In that area they have thousands of Warheads in all sizes and as we have seen in Iran shooting barrages of ballistic missiles is hard/impossible to fully intercept. A little question mark is the readiness of these systems. But they have so many that this is still a fundamental risk to mankind. A scenario could be an invasion into one of the baltics followed by demonstration nuclear strike high over Poland or other countries potentially willing to help combined with the threat that the next one goes to Warsaw or Berlin.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
More nuclear threats.......
Video
Video
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/2059278708708352483?s=20
Russia’s State Duma has given Elon Musk a choice: either cut off Starlink for Ukraine — or Russia will “leave no trace of anyone”
State Duma chairman Vyacheslav Volodin claimed Elon Musk’s satellites are allegedly being used by Ukraine “to kill children” and said the billionaire “must understand this.”
“All this could lead to us using weapons that will leave no trace of anyone,” Volodin threatened.
So, translated from Duma-speak into normal language: shut down Starlink or Russia is apparently ready to destroy the entire world 🤣
What else should Musk do? Maybe personally apologize to the State Duma too?
Russia’s State Duma has given Elon Musk a choice: either cut off Starlink for Ukraine — or Russia will “leave no trace of anyone”
State Duma chairman Vyacheslav Volodin claimed Elon Musk’s satellites are allegedly being used by Ukraine “to kill children” and said the billionaire “must understand this.”
“All this could lead to us using weapons that will leave no trace of anyone,” Volodin threatened.
So, translated from Duma-speak into normal language: shut down Starlink or Russia is apparently ready to destroy the entire world 🤣
What else should Musk do? Maybe personally apologize to the State Duma too?
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
One line stands out:
"The US will no longer contribute submarines to NATO."
In which case it's a statement that the US no longer stands behind Europe in the event of any Russian attack.
https://archive.is/20260526091628/ht...7-180d4a6592a3
Google translation:
"The US will no longer contribute submarines to NATO."
In which case it's a statement that the US no longer stands behind Europe in the event of any Russian attack.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/20...089135836?s=20
The United States has informed European allies it plans to significantly cut its military contributions to NATO, urging them to move quickly to close the gap, according to the German media outlet Der Spiegel.
Alexander Velez-Green, a senior advisor and envoy for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, briefed allies on plans during a confidential meeting last week at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, with European officials reported to have been taken aback by the scale of the planned drawdown by the Trump Administration.
As part of the drawdown, the U.S. Armed Forces plans to commit much fewer assets to NATO’s pool of readily available forces in the case of a conflict, significantly reducing the number of deployable drones, fighter jets, aerial refueling aircraft, strategic bomber, as well as warships, submarines and other naval assets, with a roughly one-third cut in just its fighter-aircraft contribution to forces in Europe.
The United States has informed European allies it plans to significantly cut its military contributions to NATO, urging them to move quickly to close the gap, according to the German media outlet Der Spiegel.
Alexander Velez-Green, a senior advisor and envoy for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, briefed allies on plans during a confidential meeting last week at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, with European officials reported to have been taken aback by the scale of the planned drawdown by the Trump Administration.
As part of the drawdown, the U.S. Armed Forces plans to commit much fewer assets to NATO’s pool of readily available forces in the case of a conflict, significantly reducing the number of deployable drones, fighter jets, aerial refueling aircraft, strategic bomber, as well as warships, submarines and other naval assets, with a roughly one-third cut in just its fighter-aircraft contribution to forces in Europe.
Google translation:
The US plans to significantly reduce its military contributions to NATO.
According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, the US government intends to significantly reduce the number of weapons systems and soldiers available to NATO. Washington is thus increasing the pressure: the Europeans must quickly close the resulting gaps.
The US plans to drastically reduce its military contributions to NATO. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, an envoy from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed high-ranking officials from other member states at NATO headquarters late last week. Washington reportedly intends to provide NATO with significantly fewer key military capabilities in the future as part of the alliance's force planning, including US fighter jets, warships, drones, and tanker aircraft.
The US is planning to significantly scale back its existing commitments to the so-called "NATO Force Model." The resulting gaps would have to be filled quickly by the Europeans themselves. The alliance agreed on this model in 2022 following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It stipulates which units and military capabilities from member states the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) can directly access to ensure deterrence and the defense of Europe.
The briefing by Pentagon official Alexander Velez-Green was eagerly anticipated in Brussels. The US has been pressing for a redistribution of military burdens within the alliance for some time. Under the existing burden-sharing system, the US provided roughly half of the military capabilities. Now, the US is demanding a redistribution ("burden shifting"). Last Friday, Hegseth's advisor, Velez-Green, presented the NATO political directors with concrete figures outlining the US's specific proposals for this.
The US proposals for future military planning were more drastic than the Europeans had anticipated. European diplomats had assumed before the meeting that it would involve minor adjustments over time. However, according to information obtained by SPIEGEL, the US intends, for example, to contribute significantly fewer strategic bombers to NATO, and a reduction of one-third in the US fighter jet contribution is also being discussed. According to European government representatives, the crucial question is what timeframe the Americans are basing their plans on.
One way to compensate for the shortfall in fighter jets would be through the ongoing deliveries of F-35 aircraft to European allies. The German armed forces are scheduled to take delivery of the first aircraft from the US next year. Poland has just received its first three F-35s. However, European NATO states do not possess strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The two aircraft carriers that the US had previously registered for deployment under the NATO Force Model are also unlikely to be easily replaced.
However, the US has made it clear that it intends to maintain nuclear deterrence in Europe within the framework of NATO. In contrast, the Europeans are expected to largely shoulder the conventional defense of the continent on their own. Accordingly, the US Navy will maintain fewer destroyers for NATO, the US envoy reported. The US will no longer contribute submarines to NATO. Europeans will also provide their own reconnaissance drones, and the US plans to significantly reduce its involvement with armed drones.
The message from President Donald Trump's administration in the closed-door meeting was unequivocal: According to US envoy Velez-Green, the allies are urged to close the emerging gaps as quickly as possible. The US is prepared to cooperate closely with all NATO partners who now act swiftly, he stated. Some in the meeting interpreted this as an indirect threat.
From the US perspective, the planned step is logical. A reduction in American capabilities is realistic and responsible, explained Pete Hegseth's advisor, since many Europeans invest more in defense and are capable of contributing more. At the NATO summit in The Hague last June, member states, under pressure from US President Trump, committed to increasing defense spending to a total of five percent of their economic output.
A Turning Point in NATO
The figures cited by Pete Hegseth's envoy herald nothing less than a turning point within NATO. For months, the US government has been proclaiming its vision of "NATO 3.0." According to this vision, the Europeans must shoulder the entire conventional defense of their contingent as quickly as possible. Now, for the first time, the other members have an idea of how quickly this NATO reorientation is to be implemented.
According to military experts, the figures cited by Hegseth's envoy are more significant than the previously known details about the withdrawal of a few thousand troops from individual European countries. While headquarters had expected Washington to reduce its own military contributions, the Europeans are now expected to act by the next meeting in early June: At the planned "Force Sourcing Conference," the US expects proposals outlining which countries can step in, in which areas, and when.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as Trump's National Security Advisor, emphasized the US commitments in the Indo-Pacific, the Western Hemisphere, and the Middle East at a meeting with his NATO counterparts in Sweden last week. He stated that the goal is to develop a strategy that is both functional and realistic for NATO, allowing the US to prepare for a two-front conflict.
US defense planning has been focused for some time on a potential escalation in the Indo-Pacific. The year 2027 is considered a key date: US intelligence agencies estimate that China will then be capable of launching an attack against Taiwan. For months, US officials have been speaking of two simultaneous threat scenarios – the precarious situation in Europe and the situation in the Indo-Pacific.
Reassurances from Brussels
The sensitivity of the figures cited by Hegseth's advisor in Brussels is evident in the reactions. Over the Pentecost weekend, the German government referred inquiries to NATO, declining to comment on the information itself, which was also classified. It is known that, with a total strength of 185,000 soldiers, the German armed forces currently maintain approximately 30,000 troops and about 200 fighter jets and warships on standby for the alliance, which must be ready for deployment within 30 days if NATO requests them in a crisis.
The US contribution to each category, either in absolute numbers or relative to its European NATO partners, is unknown. Fundamentally, the US requests do not necessarily imply a withdrawal of US troops from Europe. Military sources indicated that Washington primarily aims to achieve greater flexibility through this reduction should a conflict erupt in the Indo-Pacific. In this case, the US government does not want to be bound by registering military capabilities with NATO. Furthermore, the "NATO Force Model" also includes units stationed in the US that would only be deployed in a crisis.
The planned reduction does not mean, according to military officials, that the US will not step in should a national defense emergency arise in Europe. The NATO Force Model differentiates between troops based on their operational readiness: there are troops that the Supreme Allied Commander can access within ten days at the latest, those that must be available within 10 to 30 days, and others that must be ready within 30 to 180 days.
Nevertheless, the figures from Washington are putting the Europeans under considerable pressure. The German government is already discussing how to respond. By the beginning of June, the European NATO partners must decide what they can offer in terms of their own capabilities to close the gaps. At headquarters, it was stated that Washington would like to present the new burden-sharing plan at the NATO summit in Ankara in July. Therefore, mere declarations of intent are unlikely to suffice for the Europeans.
NATO leadership is attempting to downplay the situation. A spokeswoman for Secretary General Mark Rutte told SPIEGEL that in the past there had been an "excessive dependence" on the US in NATO's military planning. However, Europe and Canada are now investing more in defense, so it is possible to "shift the weight of responsibility."
According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, the US government intends to significantly reduce the number of weapons systems and soldiers available to NATO. Washington is thus increasing the pressure: the Europeans must quickly close the resulting gaps.
The US plans to drastically reduce its military contributions to NATO. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, an envoy from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed high-ranking officials from other member states at NATO headquarters late last week. Washington reportedly intends to provide NATO with significantly fewer key military capabilities in the future as part of the alliance's force planning, including US fighter jets, warships, drones, and tanker aircraft.
The US is planning to significantly scale back its existing commitments to the so-called "NATO Force Model." The resulting gaps would have to be filled quickly by the Europeans themselves. The alliance agreed on this model in 2022 following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It stipulates which units and military capabilities from member states the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) can directly access to ensure deterrence and the defense of Europe.
The briefing by Pentagon official Alexander Velez-Green was eagerly anticipated in Brussels. The US has been pressing for a redistribution of military burdens within the alliance for some time. Under the existing burden-sharing system, the US provided roughly half of the military capabilities. Now, the US is demanding a redistribution ("burden shifting"). Last Friday, Hegseth's advisor, Velez-Green, presented the NATO political directors with concrete figures outlining the US's specific proposals for this.
The US proposals for future military planning were more drastic than the Europeans had anticipated. European diplomats had assumed before the meeting that it would involve minor adjustments over time. However, according to information obtained by SPIEGEL, the US intends, for example, to contribute significantly fewer strategic bombers to NATO, and a reduction of one-third in the US fighter jet contribution is also being discussed. According to European government representatives, the crucial question is what timeframe the Americans are basing their plans on.
One way to compensate for the shortfall in fighter jets would be through the ongoing deliveries of F-35 aircraft to European allies. The German armed forces are scheduled to take delivery of the first aircraft from the US next year. Poland has just received its first three F-35s. However, European NATO states do not possess strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The two aircraft carriers that the US had previously registered for deployment under the NATO Force Model are also unlikely to be easily replaced.
However, the US has made it clear that it intends to maintain nuclear deterrence in Europe within the framework of NATO. In contrast, the Europeans are expected to largely shoulder the conventional defense of the continent on their own. Accordingly, the US Navy will maintain fewer destroyers for NATO, the US envoy reported. The US will no longer contribute submarines to NATO. Europeans will also provide their own reconnaissance drones, and the US plans to significantly reduce its involvement with armed drones.
The message from President Donald Trump's administration in the closed-door meeting was unequivocal: According to US envoy Velez-Green, the allies are urged to close the emerging gaps as quickly as possible. The US is prepared to cooperate closely with all NATO partners who now act swiftly, he stated. Some in the meeting interpreted this as an indirect threat.
From the US perspective, the planned step is logical. A reduction in American capabilities is realistic and responsible, explained Pete Hegseth's advisor, since many Europeans invest more in defense and are capable of contributing more. At the NATO summit in The Hague last June, member states, under pressure from US President Trump, committed to increasing defense spending to a total of five percent of their economic output.
A Turning Point in NATO
The figures cited by Pete Hegseth's envoy herald nothing less than a turning point within NATO. For months, the US government has been proclaiming its vision of "NATO 3.0." According to this vision, the Europeans must shoulder the entire conventional defense of their contingent as quickly as possible. Now, for the first time, the other members have an idea of how quickly this NATO reorientation is to be implemented.
According to military experts, the figures cited by Hegseth's envoy are more significant than the previously known details about the withdrawal of a few thousand troops from individual European countries. While headquarters had expected Washington to reduce its own military contributions, the Europeans are now expected to act by the next meeting in early June: At the planned "Force Sourcing Conference," the US expects proposals outlining which countries can step in, in which areas, and when.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as Trump's National Security Advisor, emphasized the US commitments in the Indo-Pacific, the Western Hemisphere, and the Middle East at a meeting with his NATO counterparts in Sweden last week. He stated that the goal is to develop a strategy that is both functional and realistic for NATO, allowing the US to prepare for a two-front conflict.
US defense planning has been focused for some time on a potential escalation in the Indo-Pacific. The year 2027 is considered a key date: US intelligence agencies estimate that China will then be capable of launching an attack against Taiwan. For months, US officials have been speaking of two simultaneous threat scenarios – the precarious situation in Europe and the situation in the Indo-Pacific.
Reassurances from Brussels
The sensitivity of the figures cited by Hegseth's advisor in Brussels is evident in the reactions. Over the Pentecost weekend, the German government referred inquiries to NATO, declining to comment on the information itself, which was also classified. It is known that, with a total strength of 185,000 soldiers, the German armed forces currently maintain approximately 30,000 troops and about 200 fighter jets and warships on standby for the alliance, which must be ready for deployment within 30 days if NATO requests them in a crisis.
The US contribution to each category, either in absolute numbers or relative to its European NATO partners, is unknown. Fundamentally, the US requests do not necessarily imply a withdrawal of US troops from Europe. Military sources indicated that Washington primarily aims to achieve greater flexibility through this reduction should a conflict erupt in the Indo-Pacific. In this case, the US government does not want to be bound by registering military capabilities with NATO. Furthermore, the "NATO Force Model" also includes units stationed in the US that would only be deployed in a crisis.
The planned reduction does not mean, according to military officials, that the US will not step in should a national defense emergency arise in Europe. The NATO Force Model differentiates between troops based on their operational readiness: there are troops that the Supreme Allied Commander can access within ten days at the latest, those that must be available within 10 to 30 days, and others that must be ready within 30 to 180 days.
Nevertheless, the figures from Washington are putting the Europeans under considerable pressure. The German government is already discussing how to respond. By the beginning of June, the European NATO partners must decide what they can offer in terms of their own capabilities to close the gaps. At headquarters, it was stated that Washington would like to present the new burden-sharing plan at the NATO summit in Ankara in July. Therefore, mere declarations of intent are unlikely to suffice for the Europeans.
NATO leadership is attempting to downplay the situation. A spokeswoman for Secretary General Mark Rutte told SPIEGEL that in the past there had been an "excessive dependence" on the US in NATO's military planning. However, Europe and Canada are now investing more in defense, so it is possible to "shift the weight of responsibility."
Last edited by ORAC; 26th May 2026 at 17:15.