Europe’s defence unity frays as superpowers chart separate paths

NATO’s first secretary-general, Hastings Ismay, famously said the alliance’s purpose was to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Yet 77 years on, many analysts argue that this formula has effectively been turned on its head.

All three powers are now moving with similar determination, but in sharply different directions, according to an analysis published by Poland's TVP World.

“The Americans look to be heading out, their commitment to European defence conditional in ways unimaginable even a few years ago. The Russians may be coming back in, not necessarily through the gates but through a strategic partnership with the US over the heads of Europe. And the Germans, as Defence Minister Boris Pistorius confirmed to the Bundestag on Tuesday, are very much going up,” the article states.

That last point refers to a new German military strategy document presented by Pistorius on April 22, which Caliber.Az took a closer look at in a previous article. Titled Responsibility for Europe, it is the first standalone defence doctrine Germany has produced since the founding of the Federal Republic after World War II.

“We are developing the Bundeswehr into the strongest conventional army in Europe,” Pistorius said, reaffirming a goal that Chancellor Friedrich Merz has made central to his government’s agenda.

The plan is ambitious: it envisions building Europe’s strongest conventional army by 2039, with a combined force of 460,000 troops, a defence budget of €108 billion this year, and spending reaching 3.5% of GDP on core defence by 2029—well ahead of timelines set by countries like France or the United Kingdom.

Germany is clearly preparing to take on a larger share of Europe’s defence burden. However, analysts at the German Council on Foreign Relations reviewing the new document noted that the strategy implicitly suggests Berlin is building this capability for Europe, but not necessarily with it.

Germany going it alone

As the TVP analysis recalls, the Franco-German relationship for decades rested on a tacit division of labour: France provided nuclear deterrence, a UN Security Council seat, and strategic leadership, while Germany contributed economic strength, industrial capacity, and export power.

Equally important was Germany’s self-imposed military restraint, anchored in constitutional limits, which helped make its economic dominance acceptable to its neighbours.

“That bargain held as long as the Americans were in. Once Washington began pulling back in Trump’s second term, the logic that bound Paris and Berlin together lost its glue,” TVP World notes. While both countries face the same challenges—a hostile Moscow and a less reliable United States—their responses are increasingly diverging.

One clear sign of that split came in February 2026, when Merz said Germany did not need the same next-generation, nuclear-capable fighter aircraft that France requires. The remark effectively dealt a blow to the €100 billion Future Combat Air System, the flagship joint programme launched by Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel in 2017.

Internal vs external growth

Another signal emerged this week. President Macron travelled to Gdańsk for the first Franco-Polish intergovernmental summit, where he spoke about extending France’s “forward deterrence” doctrine eastward and announced joint exercises with Poland that include nuclear-deterrence elements.

At the same time, Pistorius unveiled Germany’s long-term national rearmament plan—with little indication of deeper coordination with France or broader European partners.

“Macron flew to Poland to extend French strategic autonomy eastward. Pistorius unveiled a national strategy the same week. The two projects are both genuine responses to American withdrawal. Neither integrates with the other,” the article notes.

While this divergence does not imply hostility between European powers, the analysis suggests that the post-Cold War assumption—that defence would become the next major step in European integration—is gradually fading.

By Nazrin Sadigova