For a long time, there was a clear expectation that if Europe ever faced a significant conflict, the United States would step in without hesitation. The U.S. was seen as the organizer of military strategy, responsible for providing leadership, logistics, intelligence, and a protective nuclear umbrella for NATO. European nations played their part too, mainly through military presence and geographical advantages, but it was the American military that provided the backbone of the alliance.
That situation, however, is evolving.
With President Trump’s approach to NATO, the dynamics are shifting. It’s not just about demanding more funding for European defense. There are now fundamental changes in how battles are orchestrated, how troops are moved, and who supplies critical weaponry to Europe when crises arise—especially as Washington’s focus spreads thinner.
I’ve previously suggested that the 2026 National Defense Strategy reflects a significant change. Europe will still collaborate with the U.S., but it will no longer rely solely on American military power for its defense. The shift in priorities from Iran, which emerged much faster than anticipated, highlights this transition.
The military operations are now very much underway.
NATO Secretary-General has emphasized that European nations need to elevate their defense spending significantly. A telling sign of this new direction is the updated NATO command structure. In February 2026, shortly after the National Defense Strategy was announced, NATO allies agreed to place Europeans in command of all three major joint force commands—Norfolk, Naples, and Brunssum—for the first time. Specifically, the UK will take Norfolk, Italy will be in charge of Naples, and Germany and Poland will oversee Brunssum.
This strategic development is vital. Joint Forces Command plays a crucial role in bridging political decisions and military execution, especially near critical regions like the Baltic states, amidst rising tensions with Russia, or if sudden reinforcement is needed across the Atlantic. They coordinate troop movements and missions, determining where to direct resources during crises.
So, placing Europeans in these positions isn’t merely a staffing change. Rather, it holds Europe accountable for how regional conflicts are managed.
Brunssum is particularly noteworthy; it’s the command center closest to Russia, responsible for overseeing events involving Poland, the Baltic states, and broader eastern dynamics. It’s significant for Germany and Poland to lead here. Poland has evolved from being merely a front-line state into a central player in NATO operations.
Naples plays a critical role as well, particularly concerning the Mediterranean region and Northern Africa. The geopolitical implications are clear: the Gulf crisis could immediately affect European trade routes and energy security. Italy’s new responsibilities highlight that the southern front isn’t secondary anymore.
Norfolk, meanwhile, serves as the Atlantic headquarters, ensuring that any reinforcements from North America can cross the Atlantic efficiently. It connects vital sea routes through the Arctic and Northern Europe.
This reconfiguration represents a new military map for Europe. The previously dominant political hubs of Paris, Berlin, and Brussels have been supplemented by a geography in which Poland, Italy, and the UK play prominent roles, positioning Germany as a logistics hub and linking Scandinavia to the Baltic front.
The U.S. will still have a strong command role, particularly through SACEUR, the supreme commander of NATO forces, which oversees the integration of various military branches. While Europe is gearing up to handle more localized conflicts, the U.S. remains essential for determining what military initiatives can be undertaken.
Essentially, Trump’s NATO reset means that Europe will take on increased responsibilities while America maintains strategic oversight.
If we look at troop deployments, plans to withdraw around 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany signify more than just numbers. These reductions impact critical combat forces and capabilities that had been intended to deter Russian advances.
This is significant because combat brigades and long-range strike capabilities are crucial in modern warfare. They allow forces to preemptively strike critical targets before NATO forces engage. The removal of these capabilities sends a strong signal about the seriousness of the current strategic shift.
NATO’s exercise schedules are also changing, reflecting the kinds of conflicts the alliance anticipates having to manage.
Exercises like Steadfast Dart 26 and Amber Shock 26 are aimed at assessing NATO’s ability to rapidly deploy troops to the eastern flank in light of potential Russian aggression. Cold Response 2026 also tested Arctic readiness with a large contingent of allied troops.
While the Strait of Hormuz is outside European borders, its implications are felt acutely in Europe, affecting oil prices and energy security. The EU’s recent Operation Aspides, while effective, exposed the limitations of European naval capabilities.
Politically, Europe’s hesitation to extend maritime security operations further underscores the challenges it faces: too few assets and a lack of unified strategies.
Europe is attempting to bridge gaps—especially in air and missile defense, with initiatives like the European Sky Shield and commitment to systems like the IRIS-T SLM. However, these efforts will take time to fully materialize.
The drone capabilities also lag, with Europe struggling to produce and deploy them effectively compared to major players like Russia and Iran.
In terms of munitions production, there’s considerable pressure. Europe is ramping up its capacity to support Ukraine, but producing effective military power every month is a challenge.
Despite an increase in command responsibilities, Europe continues to rely on the U.S. for effective strategic command. Increased spending alone isn’t a catch-all solution; without unified efforts, results will vary dramatically.
Europe needs to stop its fragmented procurement practices and start producing cohesive military capabilities.
The next step following President Trump’s NATO reset will require Europe to shift focus onto hard power, investing in versatile military assets and boosting its industrial capacity.
Ultimately, the changes Trump envisioned are manifesting. The Department of Defense has made it clear: NATO’s command structure is evolving, transitioning responsibilities from an American-dominated model to one where Europe bears more of the traditional military burdens, while the U.S. retains strategic leadership.
