Europe is still dithering about defense

For nearly three years, European leaders have done what they do best — talk. While Ukraine continues to fight for its survival against the Russian invasion, European governments have spent countless hours issuing statements, attending summits and making commitments to bolster their defense capabilities. They have indeed taken steps in pledging military spending, sending aid and discussing long-term security strategies, but concrete action remains slow, and tangible results are hard to see.

Instead of urgently ramping up defense production and building a self-sufficient security framework, European nations continue to lean on Washington for leadership and resources. Europe’s citizens, meanwhile, are left watching and waiting, hoping that NATO’s security umbrella will hold.

But NATO is strongest when its members contribute equally and Europe is still not doing enough to meet the challenges ahead. The war in Ukraine should have been a turning point. Instead, progress remains sluggish, bogged down in bureaucratic inertia while time runs short.

One of the clearest examples of NATO’s misaligned priorities is Germany’s extensive Air Force deployment across the Indo-Pacific, a region increasingly defined by military tensions, territorial disputes and strategic competition between China and the U.S. As part of its operations, Germany has sent fighter jets and support aircraft to Alaska, Japan, Hawaii, Australia and India for joint training missions.

Why is Germany prioritizing deterrence in the Indo-Pacific when European security remains fragile? The U.S. values European support in Asia, but what it truly expects is a stronger, self-sufficient defense framework in Europe that ensures NATO remains a collective alliance, not one dependent on America.

Some nations understand the urgency of the moment. Poland is emerging as one of Europe’s strongest military powers, rapidly expanding its armed forces, modernizing its capabilities and reinforcing its role in NATO. It hosts a NATO battlegroup led by the U.S. and is home to an American missile defense base, solidifying its position on the eastern flank.

The Baltic states are also strengthening their defenses, with Lithuania securing a permanent German brigade deployment, a historic shift for Berlin. Yet while frontline states prepare, many of Europe’s larger powers remain stuck in debate, delaying the hard choices needed to deter future threats.

Europe cannot assume American support will last, as the new administration looks to reshape the war in Ukraine. President Trump has already signaled interest in striking a deal, whether through a ceasefire or by leveraging Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for military aid. If Trump disengages, Ukraine’s survival and the stability of the entire region depend on how quickly European nations can fill the gap.

At the same time, Trump has repeatedly demanded that European countries spend more on defense. If they meet his expectations, he may not abandon NATO entirely. This leaves Europe with a choice. It can either wait and react to shifting U.S. policies, or it can take control of its own security now.

What happens if Washington significantly scales back its commitment to NATO? Does Europe finally step up, or does the dithering continue? Military readiness cannot be built overnight, yet European nations are acting as if time is on their side. Trump can act on a whim, and he has already signaled his willingness to upend alliances.

If Trump were to withdraw or weaken U.S. support, Europe would be left unprepared. European leaders must anticipate this possibility rather than scramble to react too late. If they refuse to take responsibility for their own security, is it really up to the U.S. to fill in the gaps indefinitely?

It is time for Europe to break free from bureaucratic inertia and take real action. While some European nations are showing signs of life, too many still behave as if war could never reach their borders. But history has shown that peace is never guaranteed. The price of security is high, but the cost of inaction is far greater.

The U.S. does not want to shoulder this burden alone; it wants equal partners in Europe, nations that can deter aggression together. The time for hesitation is over. Europe must act before it is too late.

Paulius Razukevicius is deputy director of policy content at Our National Conversation and a Boston University graduate specializing in security, defense and nuclear deterrence.