BRUSSELS – In the wake of an unexpected U.S. decision to slash pre-positioned military contributions to NATO’s European crisis response framework, top alliance commander Gen. Alex Grynkewich confirmed Friday that European member states have already closed most of the resulting capability gaps, just weeks ahead of the bloc’s high-stakes July summit in Istanbul. The development comes as the alliance adapts its defense posture to shifting U.S. strategic priorities, which now prioritize countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
The Pentagon’s sudden announcement on June 3 upended long-standing NATO planning: the U.S. confirmed it would no longer pre-allocate an aircraft carrier strike group, aerial refueling aircraft, and dozens of frontline fighter jets to European defense contingencies under the NATO Force Model, the alliance’s primary framework for coordinating collective military access across peace, crisis, and conflict phases. This 6-month phased activation structure outlines exactly what assets national capitals will make available to alliance commanders when a security crisis emerges.
Grynkewich, the U.S. general serving as NATO’s top operational commander, told the Associated Press that European allies have moved rapidly to replace the withdrawn capabilities in just over a month. “In a matter of weeks, European Allies have largely filled the gaps left by U.S. reductions to the NATO Force Model,” he stated, ahead of the July 7-8 gathering of alliance heads of state and government where defense force planning will top the policy agenda.
For the small number of remaining gaps where European nations lack direct equivalents for the withdrawn U.S. capabilities, Grynkewich said alliance planners are already assessing alternative assets that can deliver the same strategic effect, though he declined to share further details on these contingency plans. Military planners have also begun updating backup response protocols to activate in the event of a large-scale attack on European NATO territory, according to Grynkewich.
The U.S. shift in force allocations caught most NATO allies off guard, as Washington reorients its global military footprint to address growing competition with Beijing in the Indo-Pacific. In response to the cuts, European allies and Canada immediately began auditing their own military stockpiles to identify available assets that could be reallocated to the NATO crisis framework. The United Kingdom, for example, has already elevated the readiness status of its second aircraft carrier and squadron of F-35 stealth fighters to make them available for emergency alliance deployments.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has sought to downplay the impact of the Trump administration’s decision, arguing that the U.S. would re-route military resources back to Europe in the event of a full-scale conflict, echoing its past deployments during prior regional security crises. “This is not about where forces and assets are currently located,” Rutte explained last month. “It’s about who would do what if our defense plans were activated. So, let’s say in case of an Article 5 situation.”
Article 5, the collective defense cornerstone of NATO’s founding treaty, enshrines the principle that an armed attack against one member state counts as an attack against all 32 allies. While the provision does not legally require any member to deploy military forces in response, the vast majority of alliance members would likely contribute military support to a collective defense operation.