Europe is undertaking its most significant military rearmament since the end of the Cold War as governments across the continent reshape defense budgets, strengthen military capabilities and prepare for a future in which the burden of European security increasingly rests on European shoulders. According to El País, the transformation is being driven by Russia’s war against Ukraine, heightened security concerns across the continent and growing uncertainty over the long-term commitment of the United States to NATO under President Donald Trump.
The shift marks a profound change for an alliance that has depended on American military leadership since the conclusion of the Second World War. European NATO members are now preparing for what many officials and analysts describe as a new strategic era, one in which they must compensate for expected reductions in U.S. military forces stationed in Europe while maintaining the alliance’s deterrence capabilities.
The transition is expected to dominate discussions at the NATO summit scheduled for July 7 and 8 in Ankara, Turkey, a gathering that El País describes as a pivotal moment for the alliance’s future. The meeting is set against the backdrop of repeated criticism from Trump, who has questioned NATO’s effectiveness, described it as a “paper tiger,” and repeatedly challenged the commitment and burden-sharing of several European allies.
The summit is expected to examine not only defense spending but also the military commitments of member states, at a time when Washington has announced a review of its military presence in Europe that could last up to six months. That assessment includes a broader evaluation of allied commitments and arrives as uncertainty grows over the future structure of transatlantic security.
For many observers, the alliance is entering a period without historical precedent. Jamie Shea, who spent nearly four decades in senior NATO positions, told El País that there is no realistic return to the previous model of the Atlantic alliance. Instead, he argued that NATO’s future depends on becoming a more European-led organization with European command structures and military forces capable of assuming greater responsibility. According to Shea, any continued U.S. contribution would remain welcome, but the alliance can no longer be built around the assumption of a dominant American conventional and nuclear military presence in Europe.
That concept has begun to shape the language of preparations for the Ankara summit. According to sources cited by El País, a draft summit declaration refers to “a stronger Europe within a stronger NATO,” reflecting efforts to redefine the balance between European and American responsibilities without formally altering the alliance’s structure.
The transition, however, is accompanied by significant contradictions. Washington has consistently urged European governments to spend more on defense while simultaneously expecting that much of the resulting investment will continue to support purchases of American military equipment. The tension has become especially visible as European governments increasingly promote strategic autonomy and domestic defense industries.
The urgency of current military shortages has complicated those ambitions. According to the report, heavy use of Patriot and THAAD missile interceptors during the conflict involving Iran has created shortages that continue to push European governments toward purchasing U.S.-made systems despite broader efforts to strengthen Europe’s own defense industrial base.
Katja Bego, a defense and transatlantic security analyst at Chatham House, told El País that Washington has historically viewed increased European defense spending as support for NATO priorities under American leadership and for U.S. weapons manufacturers in particular. She noted that Europe’s growing emphasis on strategic autonomy and purchasing European-made equipment increasingly challenges that understanding and has become a growing source of friction, extending beyond the current Trump administration to wider elements of Washington’s security establishment.
The political atmosphere surrounding the summit has become increasingly strained. During a recent visit to Washington, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte sought to prepare for the upcoming meeting and ease tensions with Trump. Instead, the U.S. president publicly renewed his criticism of European allies, accusing them of failing to support American military operations against Iran and repeating long-standing complaints about unequal burden-sharing. Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump summarized his position by declaring that the United States did not need Europe’s financial contributions and instead wanted loyalty from its allies.
At the same time, Washington has informed European allies of plans to reduce military assets available to NATO during future crises. According to allied sources cited by El País, the proposed reductions affect nearly every major category of military capability, including combat aircraft, strategic bombers, destroyers, submarines, aerial refueling aircraft and armed drones. The plans also include withdrawing approximately 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany, including an armored combat brigade and a long-range fires battalion, as well as freezing plans to deploy Tomahawk missiles on German territory.
The announced reductions coincide with a broader U.S. strategic shift toward the Indo-Pacific region. Their timing has intensified concerns among European governments because the withdrawal of American capabilities is occurring before equivalent European systems are fully developed. Liana Fix of the Council on Foreign Relations told El País that the interval between the departure of U.S. conventional forces and the arrival of credible European replacements represents the most dangerous period for deterrence since the early 1990s.
Europe’s current rearmament follows decades during which many governments reduced military spending after the Cold War while prioritizing economic growth. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine fundamentally altered those assumptions, prompting governments to rebuild military capabilities that had steadily diminished over previous decades.
Institutionally, the acceleration gained momentum last year when NATO leaders, with the exception of Spain, committed to investing 5 percent of gross domestic product annually in defense and security by 2035, a target adopted amid sustained pressure from Trump for substantially higher allied spending.
The financial scale of the effort has already reached historic levels. According to NATO data cited by El País, European allies and Canada increased defense spending by 20 percent in 2025 compared with the previous year, marking the largest annual increase since 1953. Combined defense expenditures surpassed $574 billion in constant prices, while total NATO spending approached $1.6 trillion. Since 2016, European allies and Canada have collectively added approximately $1.2 trillion in defense investment.
Even with those record expenditures, analysts caution that funding alone cannot replace critical American capabilities. The report notes that U.S. intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, space-based data collection and advanced information fusion remain essential elements of NATO’s operational effectiveness. Ruben Stewart of the International Institute for Strategic Studies told El País that Europe may possess sensors and weapons, but without equivalent intelligence infrastructure, military operations would proceed with slower updates, reduced confidence and less comprehensive situational awareness.
As Europe accelerates military investment and institutional reform, proposals for deeper defense integration have gained prominence. Shea outlined three priorities that he believes could support the transition: Europeanizing NATO’s command structures by replacing American officers with Europeans in key leadership roles, establishing a European Security Council led by France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom and Italy, and strengthening European Union financial mechanisms to standardize military equipment and reduce fragmentation across national armed forces.
The pace of change has compressed what many policymakers once believed would be a gradual evolution. As El País reports, Europe had anticipated building greater strategic autonomy over several decades. The changing security environment and shifting U.S. posture have instead condensed that process into a far shorter timeframe, leaving NATO to adapt as its members prepare for one of the most consequential transformations in the alliance’s 77-year history.
