“Keep on Dreaming”: Could Europe Really Defend Itself Without the U.S.?

Europe’s leaders have been talking for years about strategic autonomy — the idea that the continent could one day defend itself without relying on the United States. But recent comments from NATO’s Secretary‑General have underscored how far that goal still is from reality. �
The Guardian +1
“If anyone thinks Europe can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming,” NATO chief Mark Rutte told lawmakers, bluntly dismissing the notion that Europe is currently capable of going it alone. �
European Interest
This stark assessment has triggered a major debate across European capitals: Can Europe truly protect its territory and interests without American military support — and what would it take if Washington steps back?
Why the U.S. Still Matters for European Security
Since the end of World War II, American military power has been the backbone of European defence. The U.S. provides capabilities that European countries, even collectively, struggle to replicate:
Nuclear deterrence: NATO’s nuclear umbrella — with U.S. weapons and strategy at its core — remains a primary deterrent against existential threats like Russia. �
European Interest
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR): U.S. satellites, sensors, and data systems currently give NATO a broad, real‑time picture of threats — something Europe lacks independently. �
CEPA
Strategic airlift and logistics: Long‑range transport aircraft and aerial refuelling tankers allow forces to move rapidly and sustain operations — areas where U.S. capabilities still dwarf European lift capacity. �
Brookings
Command and control systems: Integrated battle management and space assets that coordinate multi‑domain operations remain dominated by U.S. technology. �
CEPA
Without these “enablers,” even a large European force would struggle to operate cohesively against a high‑end military threat. �
Defense News
What Experts Say: The Military Gap
Reports by defence analysts paint a clear picture of the scale of the challenge:
Troop readiness: Europe’s combined armed forces total around 1.5 million personnel, but many nations lack the readiness levels, logistics, and long‑range capabilities needed for high‑intensity operations. �
Brookings
Equipment shortfalls: To fill gaps left by a hypothetical U.S. withdrawal, Europe would need about 50 new brigades and massive investments in tanks, artillery, aircraft, and ammunition — a level of force modernisation far beyond current budgets. �
bruegel.org
Strategic investment: Analysts estimate Europe would need to spend hundreds of billions more and increase defence budgets to around 3–4% of GDP to begin replacing U.S. capabilities — far above the current norm of about 1.5–2%. �
Start Insight
These gaps aren’t just about numbers — European militaries were largely designed to operate with U.S. support, not replace it. �
Brookings
The Cost of Autonomy: Financial and Industrial Hurdles
Building a truly independent defence posture would be enormously expensive and politically contentious:
Huge Investment Needed
Europe could need €1 trillion or more over the next few decades to stand on its own feet, according to estimates from international security institutes. �
Strategic Culture Foundation
Raising Defence Spending
Most European states commit around 2% of GDP to defence, a NATO target. But analysts say that level isn’t enough for genuine autonomy — many argue it would have to rise “well beyond” that, potentially 3–4% or more. �
Start Insight
Industrial Fragmentation
European defence industries are fragmented. Different weapon systems, procurement processes, and national priorities make joint development, production, and interoperability difficult. �
The Guardian
Long Time Horizon
Even with political will and funding, experts say it could take a decade or more for Europe to build the technologies and capabilities it would need to defend itself independently. �
Defense News
Political and Strategic Obstacles
Even if the money were available, political factors complicate defence autonomy:
Lack of Unified Strategy
European countries still disagree over key defence priorities, threat perceptions, and how to structure a collective force. There is no single defence doctrine shared across the continent. �
The Guardian
National Rivalries
Countries often prefer national procurement, industrial jobs, and bilateral arrangements rather than pooling sovereignty in a European army. �
The Guardian
Debate Over Nuclear Deterrence
Europe’s only nuclear powers, France and the UK, maintain independent arsenals — but they function differently from NATO’s broader deterrent and are not designed to replace U.S. tactical nuclear capabilities. �
Defense News
Signs of Change: Moves Toward Strategic Autonomy
Despite the challenges, Europe is making incremental progress:
The EU has launched defence initiatives aimed at boosting joint capability and readiness, including proposals to mobilise hundreds of billions in investment and accelerate collaborative armaments development. �
europarl.europa.eu
Some European leaders, especially in France, argue for a stronger “European pillar” within NATO — not a replacement for the alliance, but a force that could operate autonomously when necessary. �
The Guardian
Nations such as Germany and the UK have increased defence spending and announced long‑term upgrades to their militaries.
Still, experts caution that even these advances fall short of full independence and — for now — mainly serve to strengthen NATO rather than supplant the U.S. role. �
chathamhouse.org
Could Europe Deter Major Threats Without the U.S.?
In theory, a military alliance of European states could defend against limited threats or regional instability. But against a large, well‑equipped adversary like Russia — or in high‑intensity collective defence — Europe lacks:
Integrated strategic airpower and missile defence
Space‑based ISR and cybersecurity assets
Heavy logistical lift and rapid force projection
A unified command structure with shared doctrine and supply chains �
Brookings
Without these, any European effort would rely on improvisation, higher casualties, slower response times and logistical bottlenecks — a “bloodier” conflict, analysts warn. �
Defense News
Conclusion: Realism vs. Aspirations
The idea of a fully independent European defence has long been an aspiration for some leaders and strategic thinkers. But as NATO’s Secretary‑General bluntly put it: Europe today cannot defend itself without the United States. �
European Interest
That doesn’t mean Europe is doomed to permanent dependency — far from it. Many countries are investing more, coordinating better, and debating structural reforms that could lay the foundations for greater autonomy in the future. Yet the financial cost, political obstacles, capability gaps, and time required mean that real independence — if it ever comes — is still decades away.
For now, the transatlantic alliance remains the cornerstone of European security, and even the most ardent proponents of autonomy acknowledge that achieving true military self‑sufficiency is a massive, long‑term project — not something Europe can simply “dream” into reality overnight.