Steadfast Dart 2026 reveals the fragility of European security when the US steps back
NATO has launched large-scale military exercises—Steadfast Dart 2026. The drills involve over 10,000 troops from 11 countries: Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye. The main goal is to assess the alliance’s readiness for the rapid deployment of significant forces. The exercises will continue until mid-March.
At first glance, this might seem like just another NATO exercise. But here’s the key detail: The US is not participating. This initiative is purely European and aims to achieve two main objectives. First, it seeks to demonstrate that Europe is strong, unafraid of American influence, and capable of protecting its interests—not just through AI animations of heroic Vikings defending Greenland, but through real military strength.
The second goal is to determine whether Europe can operate independently, without US support. The answer is likely no. It is well-known that 70% of NATO’s budget comes from US contributions. Beyond finances, NATO intelligence relies primarily on the US. Satellite communication, coordination, and command structures are also built around a model where the US acts as the “big brother” to its European partners.
Russian journalists have observed this dynamic in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan (NATO did not officially conduct an operation there, but effectively entered the country). Who controls the largest and most secure bases? Who oversees all sector units? Who plans operations and assigns combat tasks? The big brother—the US. In Kosovo, for example, NATO allies could not simply enter Camp Bondsteel. The base was American, and Europeans needed a special pass to gain entry.
Until recently, Europe seemed perfectly content with its “junior partner” status. What drove the EU’s prosperity? Cheap Russian (originally Soviet) resources with stable supply lines and minimal security costs. Security was outsourced to the Americans: US bases, air support, missile defense… Then Trump arrived, and in his typical business-like manner, stated that if you want protection, you must pay for it.
Can NATO exist without the US? That is the question European military leaders will confront during these exercises—though they likely already know the answer. Sure, NATO could exist, but it would be extremely costly for the EU; or perhaps it would not exist at all, meaning Europe must accept that the “master” will act as it pleases. And the “master”—America—is well aware of this.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently stated that the US will remain in NATO. But consider how he phrased it. When asked whether NATO or Greenland is more important to US security interests, Bessent replied: “That’s a false choice. The European leaders will come around. They will understand that they need to be under the US security umbrella.”
In the current economic climate, where Europe is struggling (for instance, BMW and Mercedes now use Chinese engines, and BASF’s output is only a third of its former level), the idea of a European NATO seems unrealistic. Europe simply lacks the funds for it.
It also lacks military equipment—most has been sent to Ukraine, and what remains would last only about a month in a high-intensity conflict. Moreover, Euro-NATO has few armies with real combat experience outside the bloc.
True, there is France, which has conducted prolonged operations in the Sahel. And Türkiye. However, even their combat experience is ineffective in a situation where there is no money. Fighting Bedouins in the Sahel or Kurds in Syria is vastly different from facing an adversary like China or Russia—or, in the new reality, the US.
The fact that the US is not participating in NATO’s latest military exercises (despite being able to easily deploy troops from bases in Germany or Italy) is telling. America’s message to Europe is clear: Let’s see how you manage without us, then come back seeking help.
The lesson is humiliating. But after all, Europe got into this situation on its own.