In Europe, discussions around a contingency scenario in the event of a potential US withdrawal from NATO have intensified. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing multiple sources, the aim is to informally develop a mechanism that would allow European countries to preserve their defense capabilities by relying on the Alliance’s existing structures.
According to the newspaper, these discussions are taking place behind closed doors — during working meetings, backchannel negotiations, and informal dinners. European officials stress that the goal is not to create an alternative to NATO, but rather to adapt the Alliance to a scenario in which the US role is significantly reduced.
The key factor accelerating these discussions is a change in Germany’s stance. While Berlin had previously been cautious about the idea of European strategic autonomy, promoted in particular by France, and preferred to maintain the United States as the primary security guarantor, the situation shifted after Friedrich Merz came to power in May 2025.
According to sources, Merz began reassessing this approach, questioning the reliability of US security guarantees. His concerns are linked in particular to the policies of Donald Trump and his approach to the war in Ukraine. In Berlin, there are fears that Washington could scale back its support for Kyiv and more broadly alter its strategic posture within NATO.
Some European officials involved in these discussions are informally referring to the project as a “European NATO.” This concept implies a gradual strengthening of the role of European countries within the Alliance, particularly in command structures and operational leadership. The objective is for Europe to assume greater responsibility, compensating for a potential reduction in US engagement. This would involve both increasing European personnel in key positions and expanding their own military capabilities.
The core issues under discussion are primarily operational. These include who would manage NATO’s air and missile defense systems, who would ensure the deployment of forces to Poland and the Baltic states, and who would coordinate logistics and large-scale military exercises. Particular attention is also being paid to nuclear deterrence. European countries aim to maintain the credibility of the “nuclear umbrella,” even in the event of a reduced US military presence on the continent.
Implementing such plans faces significant obstacles. The position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe has traditionally been held by a US officer, and Washington shows no willingness to relinquish this role. Moreover, a large part of NATO’s military infrastructure depends on US capabilities — from intelligence to command systems. This means that any transition toward greater European autonomy would require time and substantial investment.
Discussions on this contingency plan have accelerated amid deteriorating relations between the United States and its European allies, particularly following Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The issue of Greenland, which the US president previously framed as a strategic asset for the United States, has been one source of tension.
Another point of division emerged in the context of the war with Iran. Several European countries refused to support US military operations, with some even denying access to their bases. Among the most outspoken critics was Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Against this backdrop, Trump has repeatedly criticized allies for their lack of support and expressed frustration with NATO.
