“Europe Must Defend Itself”: U.S. Prioritizes Homeland Defense and Countering China, Leaving Europe to Take the Lead in Deterring Russia

U.S. pressure for greater defense burden-sharing compounds fears of Russian provocations
Europe’s pursuit of defense self-reliance takes shape through force expansion and operational reforms
Preparations intensify, from drone and AI defense strategies to troop deployments near the border

The United States has renewed pressure on Europe to assume greater responsibility for its defense as it considers redeploying some U.S. forces stationed on the continent to the American homeland and Latin America. The proposal envisages European allies taking the lead in deterring Russia while Washington concentrates its military resources on homeland defense and countering China. Europe, which has been preparing for a reduced U.S. security role, is now focusing on strengthening its ability to respond in combat, building on increases in defense spending and joint arms procurement. Amid concerns over localized Russian provocations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is refining defense strategies incorporating drones and artificial intelligence (AI), while Estonia is moving its main forces closer to the border to halt an enemy advance from the outset of an invasion.

Pentagon Expands Military Operations in Latin America

According to an October 6 report by The Hill, a U.S. news outlet covering Congress, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on October 3 that “we are expanding our military presence and the scope of our activities in Latin America, including Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala and Panama,” adding that “partnerships with Latin America have opened up an entirely new set of economic and military options.” He continued: “We want Europe to shoulder more of the burden,” and said some forces could “return to bases we will build at home, or be redeployed in other configurations within the Western Hemisphere to counter designated terrorist organizations.” His remarks were interpreted as signaling a possible redeployment of U.S. forces from Europe and stronger action against Latin American drug cartels, while underscoring Europe’s responsibility to share the security burden. All dates are local.

The Pentagon is conducting a six-month review, due to conclude by the end of the year, of potential redeployments of U.S. troops in Europe. The review reportedly includes proposals to transfer responsibility for conventional defense to European allies. In a September 30 address on the state of U.S. military forces at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, Hegseth also urged state governors to compete to host new military bases. This raises the possibility that relocating some Europe-based troops to the United States will also be considered.

Latin America is a region where China has expanded its foothold within Washington’s traditional sphere of influence through deeper economic cooperation with countries including Venezuela. Although the United States has no large military bases in South America, demand for troops in the region has increased as Washington has intensified military action against Latin American drug cartels since last fall. U.S. forces have attacked vessels suspected of involvement in drug trafficking in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. More recently, operations off Ecuador have involved intercepting large fishing vessels suspected of serving as “floating fuel stations,” removing their crews and then blowing up the vessels. Last week, approximately 50 U.S. military and law enforcement personnel also joined Ecuadorian police in a ground raid targeting suspected drug traffickers.

Washington Looks to Reallocate Military Resources as Europe Assumes Defense Responsibilities

Washington’s force deployment plans reflect a strategic judgment that military resources should be directed first toward homeland defense and countering China. This approach was also evident at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting at NATO headquarters in February last year. At the time, Hegseth cited U.S. border security and the threat from China as he made clear that Washington’s role in European security had limits. He called on European allies to lead the region’s conventional defense and assume responsibility for a substantial share of assistance to Ukraine. The underlying calculation appears to be that greater European investment in its own defense would give the United States more capacity to meet military demands elsewhere.

Europe’s transformed security landscape since the end of the Cold War also appears to inform Washington’s demands for a redistribution of responsibilities. When the Soviet Union exerted influence over Eastern Europe, the military dividing line between the West and the Eastern bloc ran through a divided Germany. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary subsequently joined NATO in 1999, followed in 2004 by seven more countries, including the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, extending the alliance’s defensive perimeter eastward. Washington’s view is that, with countries once within the Soviet sphere now incorporated into the Western collective defense system, Europe must develop defense capabilities commensurate with that expansion.

China’s growing presence in Latin America provides an additional incentive for Washington to reorganize the security architecture around its own territory. Since September last year, the Donald Trump administration has been considering ways to help U.S. and other Western companies acquire Chinese stakes in major ports around the world. Panama and the Caribbean were among the areas drawing U.S. officials’ attention, while Chinese investment in Jamaica’s Port of Kingston was also cited as a security concern. Officials within the Trump administration have also concluded that the United States lacks sufficient shipping capacity for wartime military logistics and is overly dependent on foreign vessels and ports. From Washington’s perspective, the greater China’s influence over maritime transport routes and logistics hubs connected to the U.S. homeland, the stronger the need to commit diplomatic and military resources to the Western Hemisphere.

Table 1. Europe’s Expanding Defense Responsibilities and Financing, Production and Procurement Challenges

NATO to Raise Defense and Security Spending to 5% of GDP by 2035

Washington’s demands that Europe assume greater defense responsibilities are intensifying pressure on European governments to secure the funding for their own defense. At the summit in The Hague in June last year, NATO members agreed to increase defense and security-related spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Specifically, at least 3.5% of GDP is to be allocated to core defense requirements, including personnel and weapons systems, and up to 1.5% to security-related areas such as critical infrastructure protection and network defense. National governments must therefore fund not only weapons acquisitions and force sustainment but also the roads and ports needed for military transport. To implement the agreement, members must submit annual plans for spending increases. In 2029, they will review the timetable and composition of those increases in light of the security environment and required military capabilities.

Ensuring that these funds translate efficiently into greater military capability also requires urgent reform of Europe’s fragmented weapons production and procurement systems. According to the Associated Press, nationally divided defense industries and disparate weapons systems have hampered efforts to expand production and improve the efficiency of combined operations. With Europe also needing to develop military equipment and intelligence capabilities for which it has relied on the United States, the case for reducing duplicate national investments and expanding joint procurement has become stronger. The EU has therefore decided to provide approximately $170.7 billion in financial support to help member states purchase weapons jointly and expand critical defense capabilities. However, with governments prioritizing their domestic defense manufacturers, negotiations over production volumes and manufacturing locations for joint projects are expected to prove difficult.

Developing a “Theory of Victory” Against a Russian Invasion

Europe’s debate over greater defense self-reliance is also driving changes to operational arrangements in preparation for reduced U.S. military support. This reflects a recognition that troops and equipment across the region must be closely integrated to ensure an effective initial response in a crisis. Against this security backdrop, NATO is also refining its strategy for defending the eastern flank. According to Bloomberg, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Alexus Grynkewich, is reportedly drafting a strategic document known as the “Theory of Victory” to repel a Russian attack swiftly. Intended to set out more clearly how NATO would respond to a Russian incursion into allied territory, the strategy is scheduled to be unveiled by Grynkewich in Poland on October 12.

Under the document, if Russia attacks NATO territory, the alliance would combine ground forces with capabilities deployed under the Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative to halt the advance. These include inexpensive drones, systems operated by minimal personnel and AI-based targeting technology. In particular, once NATO forces have secured freedom of action, the objective would be to destroy the enemy’s command-and-control systems and defeat Russian forces swiftly and overwhelmingly.

The document also reaffirms NATO’s defensive character and the principle of avoiding inadvertent provocation. At the same time, it explicitly calls for a collective response to “hybrid threats”—hostile activities that fall short of full-scale armed conflict. Demonstrating that NATO has sufficient capacity to respond, and thereby convincing an adversary that victory is unattainable, is described as part of the alliance’s deterrence strategy. Bloomberg reported that the strategy is intended both to demonstrate NATO’s readiness publicly and to provide a more concrete picture of the military capabilities supported by higher defense spending.

Estonia Pursues “Active Defense” to Halt a Russian Invasion at the Outset

The prospect of localized Russian provocations is adding urgency to Europe’s efforts to strengthen its readiness. In an interview with The Guardian last month, Michal Koudelka, director of the Czech Security Information Service (BIS), warned that Russia could mount a limited incursion into NATO territory or stage a false-flag provocation within months. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has also presented parliament with an intelligence assessment suggesting that Russia could use drone and missile attacks to test NATO’s commitment to collective defense. The concern is that, if member states lose time agreeing on the scale and form of their response, Russia could exploit the delay to undermine alliance cohesion.

European intelligence agencies are paying particular attention to the expansion of Russian sabotage operations. Analysts suggest that Russia could test the West’s resolve by attacking critical facilities or sowing insecurity without escalating to a level that would trigger a direct NATO military response. Normunds Mežviets, director of Latvia’s State Security Service (VDD), said the focus of Russian sabotage was “shifting from indiscriminate fearmongering to specific targets directly linked to support for Ukraine.” He added: “These attacks also deliver a psychological effect, making them a double gain for Russia.”

Estonia, which shares a border with Russia, is consequently strengthening its frontier defenses with the possibility that provocations could escalate into an actual territorial incursion in mind. According to the Financial Times (FT), Estonia is relocating key elements of its principal combat formation, the 1st Infantry Brigade, from Tapa to Jõhvi, approximately 50 kilometers from the Russian border, and building new military facilities under its “active defense” strategy. Drawing on the experience of the war in Ukraine, the aim is to stop an enemy advance at the border from the very start of an invasion. Brigade commander Tarmo Kundla told the FT that fighting must begin at the border and that the first engagement must be won. Estonia’s military is also expanding its long-range strike capabilities and is reportedly preparing to strike military targets across the border if a Russian attack begins.