Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen issued a stark warning that the Atlantic alliance faces potential "disintegration" unless European members create an independent defense structure capable of operating without American leadership.
In an interview with Politico, Rasmussen—who led NATO from 2009 to 2014—said the alliance's future cannot depend on assumptions about continued American commitment, particularly given shifting political winds in Washington and growing isolationist sentiment among segments of the American public.
"We must face an uncomfortable truth," Rasmussen said. "NATO has been the cornerstone of European security for 75 years, but that foundation is cracking. Europeans need their own pillar within the alliance that can stand on its own if necessary."
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. Calls for greater European defense autonomy are not new—French President Charles de Gaulle pursued such independence in the 1960s, leading France to withdraw from NATO's integrated military command. What makes Rasmussen's warning significant is the messenger: a former Secretary General publicly stating that the organization he once led may not survive in its current form.
The comments reflect growing anxiety in European capitals about American reliability. Successive US administrations have pressured European allies to increase defense spending, with varying degrees of diplomatic grace. More recently, American threats to withdraw from NATO entirely or to refuse to honor Article 5 collective defense commitments have shaken confidence in transatlantic solidarity.
Current frictions over base access rights amplify these concerns. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week criticized NATO allies for refusing American forces unrestricted use of military installations, calling such restrictions "a problem." Rasmussen suggested that European pushback reflects deeper questions about American command prerogatives that need to be addressed.
"If Europeans feel they have no say in how American forces use facilities on European soil, of course there will be resistance," he said. "A genuine alliance requires genuine consultation, not just expectations that Europeans will provide territory while Americans make all strategic decisions."
Rasmussen proposed creating what he termed a "European Defense Union" that would coordinate military procurement, establish integrated command structures, and develop autonomous decision-making capabilities. This entity would remain within NATO but could potentially operate independently if American participation became unreliable.
Such an arrangement would require unprecedented integration among European militaries, which currently suffer from fragmentation, duplication, and incompatibility. Europe maintains dozens of different weapons systems, communications platforms, and logistics networks that complicate joint operations. Rationalization would require member states to surrender significant sovereignty over defense procurement and force structure—historically a non-starter.
Furthermore, the initiative would demand vastly increased European defense spending. Current European NATO members collectively spend approximately $350 billion annually on defense, compared to roughly $900 billion by the United States. Creating genuinely autonomous European capabilities would require sustained investment that politically constrained governments would struggle to deliver.
"The money question is always where these proposals founder," said Sophia Besch, a defense analyst at the Centre for European Reform. "European publics want better defense, but they don't want to pay for it. Politicians know this, so grand plans quietly die."
Yet Rasmussen argues that Europeans can no longer afford complacency. Russia's war in Ukraine demonstrated both European military weakness—dependence on American intelligence, logistics, and munitions became glaringly apparent—and American limits, as Washington proved unable or unwilling to provide Ukraine with sufficient support to achieve decisive victory.
"The Ukraine war should have been Europe's wake-up call," Rasmussen said. "We've hit the snooze button instead. At some point, there won't be another alarm."
The former Secretary General's warnings align with growing consensus among European security elites that the continent can no longer outsource its defense to America. French President Emmanuel Macron has championed "strategic autonomy," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for a "security revolution," and even traditionally Atlanticist Poland has massively increased defense spending while questioning whether American guarantees remain credible.
Whether these statements translate into concrete action remains doubtful. European defense integration has been discussed for decades with minimal progress. What Rasmussen brings to the debate is his unique credibility—a former NATO leader saying publicly that the alliance's survival is not guaranteed.
That message, coming now, carries particular weight. If those who dedicated careers to NATO's success no longer believe its future is secure under current arrangements, perhaps the institution truly does face an existential moment requiring fundamental transformation rather than incremental adjustment.
