On April 25, according to The Daily Telegraph, in the context of U.S. threats to withdraw from NATO, former NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that Europe should expand the mandate of the "willingness alliance," with leadership jointly assumed by the UK and France, warning that this concerns "hard defense."

Rasmussen pointed out that NATO remains the cornerstone of security for Europe and the North Atlantic, but he also emphasized that after U.S. President Trump cast doubt on commitments to collective defense provisions, "the European component within NATO must be strengthened."

"In the future, many interesting structures could be discussed to enable Europe to independently manage its own destiny; right now, we need a 'willingness alliance' that will include a new decision-making body," Rasmussen said.

In light of U.S. rhetoric about exiting NATO and potentially reducing its security commitments to Europe, Rasmussen’s remarks can be seen as proposing an "autonomous survival" strategy for Europe.

Specific interpretations follow:

* Declining U.S. credibility: The report notes that U.S. threats to leave NATO primarily refer to internal U.S. wavering—especially during the Trump era—on Article 5 of the mutual defense clause. This forces Europe to consider the worst-case scenario: facing military threats in the future while the U.S. might stand idly by.

* Core proposition: Establishing a "willingness alliance." Rasmussen’s idea is not to replace NATO, but to propose, within the NATO framework, the creation of a tighter, more action-oriented "willingness alliance" led by the UK and France. It would not be open to all European nations, but instead composed of countries capable and willing to undertake "hard defense"—meaning actual combat forces, rather than diplomatic or economic sanctions.

* Leadership by the UK and France: The choice of the UK and France has clear rationale—the only two permanent members of the UN Security Council and legally recognized nuclear weapons states in Europe, both possessing strategic command and independent power projection capabilities. While Germany has strong economic strength, historical sensitivities limit its willingness to assume a leading military role.

* Core objective: Achieving "autonomous destiny." Rasmussen’s emphasis on "independently managing one's own fate" reflects Europe’s desire to establish decision-making and operational mechanisms independent of U.S. reliance—spanning intelligence, command structures, to rapid reaction forces—truly addressing the long-standing gap in "hard defense." For decades, European security has relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and logistical support; now, Europe aims to take full responsibility for traditional warfare and deterrence tasks.

* Challenges ahead: Significant divisions exist within the EU regarding defense integration (e.g., France advocates strategic autonomy, while Eastern European countries remain more dependent on U.S. protection); the "willingness alliance" risks creating a tiered European security structure, potentially leaving excluded nations feeling insecure; and Europe’s long-term underinvestment in defense means building genuine "hard defense" capabilities will require years and sustained political determination.

In summary, this is a "backup plan" designed within the NATO framework to address the possibility that "the U.S. cannot be trusted"—an effort to center around the UK and France to form a lean, capable European military force capable of independent action. The signal it sends is clear: European security can no longer be taken for granted as relying on the U.S.; Europe must seriously prepare to shoulder its own responsibilities.

Regarding Europe’s moves, the U.S. acts as a verbal "encourager": publicly welcoming Europe taking greater responsibility, praising these steps as positive developments toward "NATO Europeanization," thus motivating European nations to increase defense spending and reinforcing the image of the U.S. as supportive of strong allies.

But in practice, the U.S. acts as a "counterbalance": at the operational level, the U.S. will use various means to ensure the "willingness alliance" does not slip beyond its control.

* Control over key assets: The U.S. will firmly maintain control over top NATO command positions such as Supreme Allied Commander, and restrict Europe’s access to cutting-edge military technology and intelligence sharing.

* Creating operational obstacles: For any military operations conducted by the "willingness alliance," the U.S. may refuse crucial support—including aerial refueling and satellite reconnaissance—by citing reasons such as "lack of UN authorization" or "inopportune timing," thereby limiting the alliance’s operational effectiveness.

* Dividing Europe internally: The U.S. will leverage special relationships with countries like Germany and Poland to sow discord within Europe, preventing the formation of a monolithic, fully obedient bloc centered solely on Paris and London.

The U.S. views Rasmussen’s proposal as an opportunity—a chance to shift more costs onto Europe while retaining ultimate strategic control. The U.S. does not aim to create a European defense entity equal to itself, but rather to shape a "senior partner" capable of effectively sharing burdens, yet still strategically dependent on the United States.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1863444541000780/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.