TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsNATO must die: The European sovereignty crisis
To become sovereign in defense matters (and more generally), Europe must terminate NATO.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte delivers a speech during a meeting of the Security and Defense Commission on Jan. 26, 2026, at the European Parliament in Brussels. (AFP/Nicolas Tucat)
T
he idea of a European Defense Union is gaining ground across Europe. But so long as NATO continues to dominate Europe’s security, the prospect of building its own effective defense union will remain elusive. To become sovereign in defense matters (and more generally), Europe must terminate NATO, a prospect as unlikely as it is necessary.
Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister who is now NATO’s secretary-general, recently let slip a truth that drew gasps from across Europe. He described the alliance not merely as Europe’s defensive shield but as “a platform for the United States to project power on the world stage,” and that “making use of key assets here in Europe” is “crucial also for the success of this American‑Israeli campaign” in Iran.
Rutte is right. NATO is a forward base for wars Europe did not choose, against adversaries Europe does not have, in the service of the global ambitions of a power increasingly at odds with Europe’s interests and values. European leaders always knew that the North Atlantic alliance was a marriage of nonequals, but they accepted this in return for the promise of security.
Now that the US commitment to European security is in doubt, Rutte is cutting a lonely figure by continuing to celebrate an arrangement that keeps Europe tethered to the American imperium. Even among Europe’s Atlanticists, faith that NATO will automatically revert to its default settings once Donald Trump leaves office is waning (albeit in ultra-slow motion).
Permanent acquiescence to US whims does not a European defense strategy make. At the same time, even the most conservative Europeans recognize that NATO without the US would be like a bicycle without a rider. That is why calls for a European Defense Union, most likely a coalition of the willing founded via the European Union’s enhanced cooperation procedure and extending to Norway and the United Kingdom, are multiplying.
But therein lies the problem. So long as NATO continues, a viable European alternative is impossible.
A properly functioning European Defense Union requires clear answers to four hard questions: Who places the orders for Europe’s weapons? Who issues the common debt necessary to pay for them? How is the resulting expenditure distributed among member states’ national champions in the defense industry? Last but certainly not least, who will order Europeans in uniform to kill and be killed?
