For nearly a decade, Anders Fogh Rasmussen was one of the primary architects of the transatlantic security bridge, first as the Prime Minister of Denmark and later as the Secretary General of NATO. He spent years championing a world where American leadership was the indispensable bedrock of European stability. But the man who once steered the alliance through the complexities of the early 21st century now warns that the bedrock is crumbling.
In a candid assessment that signals a profound shift in strategic thinking, Rasmussen has declared that NATO is currently in a state of “dissolution.” The catalyst, he argues, is the unpredictable and often adversarial approach of U.S. President Donald Trump during his second term. For Rasmussen, the current crisis is not a temporary diplomatic spat, but a systemic failure that necessitates a “painful” divorce from the security dependencies of the past.
Speaking to the German publication die Welt, the 73-year-old former chief urged European powers to stop waiting for a return to the status quo and instead build a sovereign defense block. This proposed alliance would not only seek to protect the continent but would explicitly include Ukraine, leveraging Kyiv’s battle-hardened military as a primary bulwark against Russian aggression.
The Erosion of Article 5
At the heart of Rasmussen’s alarm is the perceived fragility of Article 5—the cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all. For decades, this single sentence provided the psychological and strategic deterrent that kept Eastern Europe secure. However, Rasmussen suggests that President Trump’s repeated questioning of this commitment has rendered the guarantee unreliable.
The former Secretary General argues that when the leader of the world’s preeminent military power casts doubt on the alliance’s fundamental promise, the deterrent effect vanishes. This vacuum of trust, he suggests, has left Europe vulnerable and psychologically dependent on a partner that may no longer be willing to pay the price of protection.
This assessment stands in stark contrast to the current approach of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Sources and reports indicate that Rutte has adopted a strategy of extreme diplomacy and conciliation to manage the relationship with the White House. Rasmussen has been critical of this “appeasement” strategy, noting that Rutte has gone to great lengths to flatter the U.S. President—even reportedly referring to him as “pappa”—in an attempt to keep the alliance intact. To Rasmussen, This represents a superficial fix for a structural collapse.
A ‘Coalition of the Willing’ and the 5% Mandate
Rasmussen is not suggesting the immediate total abandonment of NATO, which he believes will remain a “cornerstone” primarily due to the overarching umbrella of American nuclear weapons. Instead, he proposes a dual-track system: a “coalition of the willing” led by the continent’s heavyweights—the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy.
This new European security alliance would be far more rigorous than the current NATO framework. Rasmussen proposes a strict membership criterion based on financial commitment, moving well beyond the traditional 2% of GDP spending target. He suggests a mandate of 5% of GDP invested in defense to ensure that Europe is not merely “buying” security, but building the industrial capacity to sustain it.
The most significant strategic pivot in this plan is the immediate and full integration of Ukraine. Rasmussen views Ukraine not as a liability to be managed, but as a strategic asset. Having witnessed the rapid evolution of Ukrainian weaponry and ammunition production under the pressure of total war, he argues that Kyiv provides the exact combat experience and industrial urgency that Western Europe currently lacks.
| Feature | Current NATO Model | Rasmussen’s Proposed EU Block |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Leadership | United States | UK, France, Germany, Italy |
| Spending Target | 2% of GDP (often unmet) | 5% of GDP (mandatory) |
| Ukraine Status | Partner/Candidate | Full Member / Frontline Bulwark |
| Security Logic | Transatlantic Dependency | Strategic Autonomy |
Breaking the Cycle of ‘Cheap’ Dependencies
Beyond the military logistics, Rasmussen’s critique extends to the very economic foundations of the European project. He describes a historical pattern of “strategic laziness,” where European nations outsourced their most critical needs to external “strong men” to maximize short-term profit.
For years, the European model relied on a triad of dependencies: cheap energy from Russia, cheap consumer goods from China, and cheap security from the United States. Rasmussen argues that this model has not only failed but has become a liability, leaving the continent susceptible to the whims of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump.
“We must adjust our strategic thinking,” Rasmussen told die Welt. The transition to self-reliance is described as “very painful” because it requires a fundamental reallocation of national budgets and a psychological admission that the era of the “American shield” is over. For a leader who once supported the Iraq War and championed strong U.S. Leadership, this pivot represents a stark admission of a new geopolitical reality.
The Path Forward
The proposal for a sovereign European defense block faces significant hurdles, including the deeply entrenched bureaucracy of NATO and the varying political wills of EU member states. However, the urgency of the current security environment in Eastern Europe may provide the necessary catalyst for such a shift.
The immediate focus for European capitals will be the upcoming series of bilateral defense summits scheduled for late 2026, where the “coalition of the willing” may begin to formalize their spending commitments and discuss the legal frameworks for Ukrainian integration outside the traditional NATO accession process.
Time.news encourages readers to share their perspectives on European strategic autonomy in the comments below. How should the continent balance its relationship with the U.S. While pursuing self-defense?
