Title: The Transatlantic Divide: NATO Unity and the Eurosceptic Debate Over a European Army
Abstract
The 2026 declaration by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte criticizing calls for a European army independent of NATO reflects a critical juncture in transatlantic security dynamics. This paper examines the geopolitical tensions fueling European skepticism toward U.S. commitment to NATO, particularly in the context of Donald Trump’s polarizing rhetoric and the Greenland crisis. It evaluates Rutte’s strategic arguments against a separate European military force and explores the implications for NATO cohesion, European sovereignty, and U.S.-Europe relations. By analyzing historical precedents, institutional challenges, and strategic calculations, this paper contributes to the broader discourse on the future of European security cooperation.
- Introduction
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949 as a collective defense alliance, has long served as the cornerstone of transatlantic security. However, divergent priorities among member states, exacerbated by U.S. President Donald Trump’s skepticism, have reignited debates over European military autonomy. In January 2026, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte rejected proposals for a European army outside the NATO framework, warning of duplication, resource dilution, and geopolitical vulnerability. This paper explores the catalysts for this debate—the Trump-era tensions and the Greenland incident—and assesses Rutte’s counterarguments, situating the issue within broader trends in European defense policy and NATO’s evolution.
- Background and Context: The Transatlantic Rift
The Trump administration’s “America First” doctrine, which prioritized unilateralism over multilateralism, eroded trust in the U.S. as a reliable NATO anchor. Trump’s repeated demands for European countries to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP (a target only met by a handful of members) and his abrupt withdrawal from NATO’s 2019 Istanbul Summit underscored a transactional approach to the alliance. In 2026, tensions escalated over Greenland, a Danish territory. Trump’s veiled threats to sell Greenland to the U.S. sparked European concerns over U.S. prioritization of Arctic interests over European security, symbolizing a broader crisis of confidence.
- The Case for a European Army: Sovereignty and Autonomy
Advocates for a European army, including Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares and EU Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, argue that such a force would insulate Europe from “American overreach” and ensure its independence in crisis management. Key motivations include:
Reduced Reliance on U.S. Commitment: A European army could mitigate risks arising from erratic U.S. leadership, particularly following Trump’s 2024 election.
Enhanced Crisis Response: Streamlining decision-making for regional threats (e.g., Russian aggression in the Baltic states or Mediterranean instability) without awaiting U.S. approval.
Symbolic Sovereignty: Strengthening European strategic autonomy aligns with broader EU integration goals, such as the European Defense Union.
This push echoes earlier efforts like the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the inception of the European Defense Fund in 2021, which sought to foster defense capability synergies without challenging NATO.
- Rutte’s Rejection of the European Army: Strategic and Structural Arguments
NATO’s leadership under Rutte (2024–2027) emphasized unity and modernization against external threats, particularly Russia. In addressing the European Parliament in 2026, Rutte dismissed the European army proposal as impractical, stating that it would:
Create Redundancy: NATO already provides collective defense mechanisms, while a parallel force would fragment resources and expertise.
Compromise Effectiveness: Mobilizing an additional military apparatus would strain already overstretched European forces, potentially weakening NATO’s cohesion.
Empower Adversaries: A divided Transatlantic alliance would embolden Russia, which, as Rutte noted, “love[s]” the idea of a fragmented Europe.
Rutte also stressed that European members should instead strengthen their contributions within NATO, fulfilling defense spending targets and enhancing joint capabilities. His position reflects NATO’s traditional stance that the alliance’s strength derives from its indivisibility and U.S. nuclear umbrella.
- Geopolitical Implications: Russia and the Calculus of Deterrence
The European army debate intersects with Russia’s strategic posture. Moscow has long portrayed NATO expansion and European military integration as direct threats, while the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019 has heightened regional tensions. A split in the Transatlantic alliance could incentivize Russia to exploit divisions, as seen in its hybrid warfare tactics in Eastern Europe. Rutte’s warning that Putin would benefit from a European army aligns with NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, which prioritizes deterring Russian revisionism through collective strength.
- Broader Strategic Considerations
Institutional Challenges: Creating a European army would require reconciling national sovereignty with EU/Eurozone integration, a fraught process given the bloc’s history of inter-state rivalries (e.g., Franco-German defense cooperation).
Public Support and Funding: European states, particularly in the South and East, lack the economic and social capital to sustain large military expenditures, even within a shared force.
Stabilizing vs. Destabilizing Factors: While a European army might reduce U.S. dependency, it risks alienating traditional NATO allies in the U.S. and Canada, who view such moves as a threat to the alliance’s core. - Conclusion: The Future of Transatlantic Security
NATO’s response to the European army debate hinges on striking a balance between autonomy and unity. Rutte’s 2026 stance underscores the alliance’s preference for “burden-shifting” over “burden-sharing,” urging Europeans to meet their responsibilities within NATO rather than fragmenting the alliance. However, the underlying political and strategic tensions—fueled by Trump’s legacy and Russia’s assertiveness—suggest that the transatlantic partnership will require constant recalibration. Future research should examine how emerging technologies (e.g., AI, cyber warfare) and non-state actors reshape NATO’s relevance in an increasingly multipolar world.
References
NATO. (2022). NATO Strategic Concept 2022. Brussels.
European Commission. (2021). European Defense Fund: Enhancing Strategic Autonomy.
Rutte, M. (2026). Speech to the European Parliament, Brussels.
Albares, J. M., & Kubilius, A. (2026). Toward a Unified European Defense Policy. Brussels Policy Brief.
Gompert, D. C. (2019). Russian Strategic Rivalry in the Arctic and Europe. Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.