How US wants to reform NATO and what Europe thinks about it

On 12 February, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby stated at a meeting of NATO defence ministers that the Alliance requires deep reform.

Ahead of the meeting in Brussels, the North Atlantic Alliance officially launched a military mission in the Arctic to accommodate the United States. No parameters of the mission have been defined so far. Its goal is to help Donald Trump save face amid the Greenland crisis.

The only thing known, and emphasised by virtually all allies, is that the Arctic focus must not distract attention from Ukraine.

Read more in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor (from Brussels): NATO version 3.0: how Europe settled the conflict with US and how Ukraine can keep the Alliance’s attention.

Every year, and for many years now, on the Thursday before the Munich Security Conference, defence ministers of all NATO member states gather in Brussels to "compare notes," coordinate policy and so on.

This day was chosen for logistical reasons – to make it convenient for the US and Canadian defence chiefs to travel to Europe for two key security events at once.

Elbridge Colby flew to Brussels instead of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this time. His position can be translated as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (officially referred to as Under Secretary of War for Policy).

This substitution is not seen as a negative signal from the US, according to Iceland’s foreign minister, who also represents the country at defence minister meetings.

The Pentagon chief shown himself since taking office to be a rather difficult interlocutor for his European colleagues.

His deputy, Elbridge Colby, is a typical representative of the current administration. He also believes the US should reduce its efforts in Europe. He is certainly not pro-Ukrainian and is said to have been behind decisions to halt the supply of air defence missiles to Ukraine’s armed forces from US stockpiles.

At the same time, NATO sources say that over the past year he has frequently worked with European counterparts and demonstrated constructive engagement – something of a "good cop" compared to Hegseth.

Colby arrived with a clear message: NATO needs reform.

However, this does not mean revising the Alliance’s legal foundations, but rather changing its ideology and operational approach.

For Europeans, this is positive, as it means preserving two key expectations from NATO – the "nuclear umbrella" and collective defence in case of attack.

Colby did not provide detailed assurances, for example, explicit commitments that the US would enter a war if any NATO member were attacked.

Moreover, it appears that the Alliance’s area of activity and collective defence remains its current territory, with no new grounds emerging under which the US might demand European military participation elsewhere.

So what will change?

For now, Colby’s concept is outlined in general terms and will likely be adjusted as events unfold. But some elements are already clear.

He has already warned of the first practical change: the US will reduce its military presence in Europe where it is not related to maintaining nuclear capabilities. He stressed that this means reductions, not a complete withdrawal.

And of course, a key US demand in the updated NATO approach remains increased defence budgets among European states.

All these conditions are quite acceptable for Europeans, so ministers left Brussels with a sense that stability has returned to NATO.

A day before the ministers gathered in Brussels, NATO’s military command announced the urgent creation of a new Arctic mission called "Arctic Sentry."

This will allow all Alliance members to "exhale," shifting attention away from the political problem created by the Greenland crisis and refocus on more urgent matters, such as Ukraine.

Several ministers, including those representing northern countries, emphasised this openly in Brussels.