Brussels, AP — NATO’s top commander told The Associated Press on Friday that European member nations have successfully addressed the majority of military capability gaps created by the United States’ recent decision to reduce its contributions during times of crisis. U.S. Gen. Alex Grynkewich noted that while the alliance is still working on alternate solutions for a few remaining areas where a direct, like-for-like replacement is not currently available, the progress made by allies in just a few weeks has been significant.
The shift follows a surprise announcement from the Pentagon on June 3, stating that the U.S. would no longer supply certain assets—including an aircraft carrier, support ships, aerial refueling tankers, and dozens of fighter jets—to the European theater. The U.S. indicated that this realignment is intended to focus resources on emerging threats elsewhere, specifically regarding China in the Indo-Pacific region. In response, European allies and Canada conducted comprehensive reviews of their own inventories to bolster readiness. For instance, Britain has increased the readiness levels for a second aircraft carrier and a fleet of F35 fighter jets to prepare for potential emergencies.
Gen. Grynkewich, who has been overseeing contingency planning for potential attacks, emphasized that these adjustments are vital for the NATO Force Model. This framework serves as the alliance’s primary strategy for organizing military assets from its 32 member nations across different phases of peace, crisis, or conflict. These discussions regarding force planning are expected to take center stage at the upcoming July 7-8 summit in Turkey, which will be attended by President Donald Trump and other alliance leaders.
Despite the changes in asset allocation, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has sought to minimize concerns regarding the U.S. policy shift. Rutte maintains that the U.S. would likely surge resources to Europe if a genuine conflict were to break out, drawing a comparison to previous deployments during the war on Iran. He noted that the current focus is not on where assets are stationed during peacetime, but rather on the agreed-upon obligations under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Under this collective security guarantee, while an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, it does not explicitly mandate military support, though such assistance remains a strong expectation among the allies.
