ANKARA, Turkey – As America’s allies scramble to find solutions and replacements for bombers, warships and other forces, the United States recently told other NATO members they can no longer rely on them in a crisis.
But filling all the holes left by the American pullback – including mid-air refueling equipment that is in short supply and long-range strategic bombers that only the US has – Is proving challenging for military alliance And its European members, in particular, are at risk of being exposed to growing threats from Russia.
European leaders are set to raise the issue this week at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s planned annual summit in Ankara, Turkey, where allied leaders will try to maintain an atmosphere of unity despite the U.S. war with Iran and the Pentagon’s determination to shift assets to the Pacific.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said, “The Europeans are already delivering what the US can no longer promise.” an interview With The Wall Street Journal.
Rutte acknowledged that “in some cases we have more work to do” on replacing US capabilities. However, it is better for NATO to have realistic expectations that the US can be certain about contributing, he said.
One solution that attempts to compensate for the lack of long-range strategic bombers: deploying more long-range missiles on the ground and fighters in the sky..
NATO veterans and military experts say the Europeans cannot easily replicate or quickly replace some of the key military capabilities the U.S. has devoted to defending the alliance for decades, including long-range bombers, an aircraft carrier and submarines. He says the Trump administration’s cuts are immediate, leaving no time for changes.
Retired Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, who served as the coalition’s top commander during the latter months of the Obama administration and President Trump’s first term, said any transfer of military responsibility from the U.S. to European countries must be carefully timed and requires more preparatory work.
“I don’t agree with the uncertainty we have created in our posture of power,” he said. “If we decide there must be a change, it cannot happen immediately and without preparation, in order to ensure deterrence against the real threat that Russia poses.”
Some former US officials say less reliance on the US could lead the alliance to rely more on nuclear forces to deter Russian aggression. The six-nation program called “nuclear sharing” allows some European countries, including Germany, Britain and Turkey, to arm their aircraft with American nuclear weapons in war, an arrangement that Polish officials say they want to join.
“If NATO is less able to rely on its conventional forces for deterrence, that makes the alliance more dependent on the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons,” said Celeste Wallander, who served as assistant secretary of defense responsible for NATO and Russia policy during the Biden administration.
The U.S. cuts, which have recently irked European and U.S. lawmakers, fall into two groups: cuts to U.S. Army brigades already deployed on the continent, and cuts to air, Navy and other reinforcements, which the Pentagon had promised to send in the crisis.
For the Trump administration, the dual moves signaled that now is the time for Europeans to take the lead in Europe’s traditional defense — better positioning the US to bolster its military in the Pacific to deter China and deploy forces in the Western Hemisphere. Washington has committed to maintaining its nuclear umbrella over Europe, which is NATO’s last defense against Russia.
But the sudden steps unnerved many Europeans, especially since Russia has stepped up its bombing of Kiev and continued modernizing its military. While Russia’s ground forces are stuck in Ukraine, its air, missile and naval assets remain largely intact.
The war in Ukraine — and Russia’s long-term goal of weakening NATO — are set to be a top agenda item for a summit of alliance leaders this week, U.S. and European officials said.
Trump is expected to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a senior Trump administration official.
Europeans accuse Russia of waging a campaign of subversion and unconventional warfare across the continent, which falls short of war yet signals Moscow’s malign intentions. Some European leaders say hybrid attacks could presage more conventional military attacks in the coming years.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said last month, “It is difficult and dangerous for the security of NATO’s European front when capabilities are withdrawn too quickly and before it is clear when these can be replaced.”
U.S. Air Force Gen. Alexus Grinkevich told the Journal that European allies have largely filled the gaps left by U.S. cuts. “In those few areas where they don’t, where they don’t currently have the same ability to change, we’re looking at alternative capabilities that have a similar impact,” he said.
In an effort to fill the gap, European countries now dedicate all of their new combat aircraft to NATO defense rather than holding some back for their national missions, Allied officials said.
Western officials say discussions are underway to replace long-range strategic bombers with more ground-based long-range missiles and fighter planes. However, officials say replacing U.S. capabilities in air refueling will not be easy and will require establishing more airfields with refueling capacity.
But there are skeptics too.
“Long-range fires on the ground can be complementary, but they can’t come close to a bomber’s reach or replicate a bomber’s ability to quickly attack a target,” said David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and a retired Air Force three-star general. “Fighters can’t carry as big a payload as bombers and they have less reach, and when you look at a country the size of Russia, range matters.”
While Europe has hugely increased military spending in recent years, its defense industry, flush with new cash after decades of sluggish investment, is now grappling with major production bottlenecks to deliver needed weapons and munitions on time.
“I think the big issue that Europeans should focus on is the industrial rhythm and the ability to deliver in a very fast way to really meet this moment,” said Alexandra de Hoop Schaefer, president of the German Marshall Fund, a think tank.
The reduction in reinforcements comes as the Trump administration has reduced the number of US troops on the continent, a footprint that has long provided a tangible demonstration of US commitment to NATO.
In May, the Pentagon deployment canceled of an armored brigade from Fort Hood, Texas, to Poland. Trump later said he would send 5,000 troops to Poland, although the Pentagon has not yet sent more troops to the country. The move follows the Trump administration’s move last year to remove an infantry brigade from Romania.
The Pentagon has also done deployment stopped An army battalion equipped with long-range missiles in Germany.
in washingtonProminent Republican and Democratic lawmakers It has sought to prevent the Pentagon from removing additional troops by inserting a provision in pending military-spending legislation that would prevent U.S. troop levels from falling below 76,000 without further review.
Another fight has broken out over the US military’s stockpile of weapons and equipment kept in Europe.
U.S. European Command aims to deploy four armored brigades during the crisis. To protect against troop reductions, the command wanted to ensure that adequate supplies of weapons and equipment were kept in Europe. If American troops are coming from the US faster, it will speed up their deployment, but the Pentagon has not yet provided the necessary funds.
Congress is also moving to block the removal of any military stockpiles in Europe, something Pentagon officials say would violate Trump’s prerogatives as commander in chief.
“I think the department is fundamentally miscalculating the benefits of prepositioning stocks and equipment in Europe,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Michael R. write to gordon michael.gordon@wsj.comon daniel michaels Dan.Michaels@wsj.com And on Robbie Grammer robbie.gramer@wsj.com
