Diplomatic circles across Europe and the United States are buzzing after a series of high-level meetings and statements revealed a dramatic shift in the balance of responsibility within NATO. The United States, long the backbone of the alliance’s conventional defense, has delivered a clear message: Europe must take over most of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities—including intelligence, missile systems, and logistics—by 2027, or risk a diminished American role in the alliance. The news, first reported by Reuters on December 6, 2025, has sent ripples of concern and debate through both sides of the Atlantic.
According to Reuters, the message was delivered at a Washington meeting attended by Pentagon officials responsible for NATO policy and delegations from several European nations. Five sources familiar with the conversation, including a US official, confirmed that the Pentagon’s position was unequivocal. The United States, they said, is not satisfied with the progress Europe has made since Russia’s expanded invasion of Ukraine in 2022. If European allies do not meet the 2027 deadline, the US warned it may withdraw from some NATO defense coordination mechanisms—an unprecedented move that would dramatically alter the alliance’s operational structure.
The specifics of how progress will be measured remain unclear. As Reuters noted, Pentagon officials did not explain how they would assess Europe’s ability to shoulder the majority of the conventional defense burden. Conventional capabilities include everything from troops and weapons to critical intelligence and missile defense systems. Some European officials, speaking anonymously, called the 2027 deadline unrealistic, citing the need for not just money and political will, but also time to replace certain uniquely American capabilities. These include advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets that have proven crucial in supporting Ukraine’s war effort.
The Trump administration’s position on NATO has long been a source of both anxiety and confusion for European allies. As reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation, President Donald Trump has consistently pushed for greater European defense spending, most recently raising the target from 2% to 5% of GDP—a move that has received mixed reactions across the continent. During the 2024 campaign, Trump even claimed he would encourage Russian President Vladimir Putin to attack NATO countries that failed to meet their obligations, only to later praise European leaders at the June NATO summit for agreeing to increased defense spending.
Despite these mixed signals, the new National Defense Strategy published on December 5, 2025, leaves little doubt about Washington’s expectations. The document warns that Europe must “remain European” or risk “civilizational erasure,” and highlights Russia’s war in Ukraine as a key motivator for shifting the defense burden. “Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states,” the strategy states.
European countries have responded with a flurry of activity, but also concern. France, for instance, has pledged to deliver 100 Rafale fighter jets to Ukraine over the next decade, while Germany recently passed a law requiring 18-year-olds to fill out questionnaires about their willingness to join the armed forces. The European Union has set its own ambitious goal: to make the continent capable of defending itself by 2030. However, as officials and analysts told Reuters, even this deadline is seen as highly ambitious, given the gaps in air defense, drones, cyber capabilities, and ammunition that Europe still needs to fill.
The recent NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, covered by Xinhua, further underscored the growing divide. For the first time in over two decades, the US Secretary of State was absent, sending Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau in his place. Landau, who has previously questioned NATO’s relevance on social media, told ministers it was “obvious” that allies should take responsibility for Europe’s defense. “Successive American administrations have been saying this in one way or another for almost my entire life… but our administration really means what it says,” Landau posted on X.
The absence of Secretary Rubio, and Landau’s outspoken skepticism, have fueled European anxiety about being sidelined. As former NATO arms control director William Alberque told Al Arabiya, it is highly unusual for the US Secretary of State to miss such a meeting, and NATO would typically reschedule to accommodate a US absence. European diplomats worry that the US is not only shifting the burden but also the leadership of the alliance.
Meanwhile, the mechanics of supporting Ukraine have become more complicated. Since the Trump administration cut US military assistance to Ukraine in summer 2025, NATO established a “Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List” (PURL) to allow European allies to fund weapons purchases from US stockpiles. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced that more than two-thirds of NATO members have pledged contributions, expected to exceed $5 billion by the end of the year. However, the EU estimates Ukraine will need at least 83 billion euros (about $97 billion) in military support over the next two years, leaving a massive funding gap.
European approaches to the PURL are mixed. France prefers donating European-made equipment, Italy wants to focus on diplomacy and a cease-fire, and Hungary refuses to participate entirely. The EU has launched its own “Security Action For Europe” instrument, offering up to 150 billion euros to support defense procurement, with a goal that 65% of equipment comes from European manufacturers. According to Politico Europe, Landau criticized European counterparts for trying to “bully” US defense firms out of the bloc’s rearmament efforts, highlighting tensions not just over funding, but also over who gets the lucrative contracts.
These economic tensions are only adding to the strategic uncertainty. As business analyst Ferenc Kelemen told Xinhua, Europe faces a stark choice: “either it takes on the new role of a funding mechanism for American-designed security arrangements, or it accepts trans-Atlantic fractures. There is no third option.”
Despite the pressure, European allies have largely accepted the need to increase their defense spending. As a NATO official told Reuters, “Allies have recognized the need to invest more in defense and to shift the burden of conventional defense from the United States to Europe.” Yet, the practical challenges remain daunting. Production backlogs for military equipment, the time required to develop advanced capabilities, and the simple reality that some American assets cannot be bought off the shelf all make the 2027 deadline a formidable target.
Pentagon spokeswoman Kingsley Wilson summed up the US position: “We have been very clear that Europeans must take the lead in Europe’s conventional defense. We are committed to working through NATO coordination mechanisms to strengthen the Alliance and ensure its long-term sustainability, as European allies increasingly assume responsibility for conventional deterrence and defense in Europe.”
As 2025 draws to a close, the future of NATO hangs in the balance. Whether Europe can meet the challenge—and whether the US will follow through on its warnings—remains to be seen. For now, the alliance faces a defining test of its unity, purpose, and ability to adapt to a rapidly changing security landscape.
