Elbridge Colby is Right: Europe Should Focus on Europe
The Trump administration wants European capitals to stop trying to deter China and focus on their own continent.
The Pentagon is pushing the British military to focus more of its attention and resources in the Euro-Atlantic, not in East Asia, the Financial Times reported recently. The policy’s purported architect is U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, who has been a strong supporter of America’s European allies increasing their military spending and doing more for their own defense, especially in light of the Ukraine War and increased concern regarding Russian aggression.
This policy marks a sharp break from the Biden administration, which sought to link America’s Indo-Pacific and NATO allies under the presumption that an enhanced European military presence in Asia would help counter Chinese belligerence in the region. Reacting to the FT’s reporting, Ely Ratner, the Biden administration’s top Pentagon official for the Indo-Pacific region, suggested that Europe staying actively engaged in Asia would be “good for deterrence and good for Taiwan’s defense and resilience” and is “something to be encouraged.”
But Colby is correct in both his analysis of the situation and the prescriptions recommended. On the whole, America’s allies in Europe currently do not have the resources necessary to undertake meaningful deployments outside of their principal theater. Furthermore, when they do undertake such operations, they are not contributing to regional deterrence in any significant manner and, instead, are exacerbating an already tenuous regional equilibrium.
Since President Barack Obama declared a pivot to Asia in the early 2010s, Europeans have been fearful that increased U.S. engagement in East Asia would be at their expense, given their underinvestment in defense and overreliance on America’s strategic leadership. By attempting to step up their own engagement in the Indo-Pacific and increase confrontational rhetoric and trade policies toward China, the Europeans are seeking to ensure continued U.S. support by demonstrating that they can help the U.S. counter its “pacing threat.”
This European motivation to enhance military engagement in Asia has aligned with a growing sense of urgency among U.S. regional allies to counter and deter China’s aggressive maritime behavior—notably Japan and the Philippines, who have been facing tense maritime disputes with China. This was demonstrated clearly at last month’s meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Condemning China’s “destabilizing activities” across Indo-Pacific waters, the two leaders vowed to elevate regional security cooperation, including joint military maneuvers. Similarly, the Philippines has also sought to expand maritime security cooperation with European actors, reaching an agreement in August 2024 with Germany to conduct joint training.
As a result of these trends, throughout the Biden administration European states dramatically increased their military engagement in the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate their commitment to international law, freedom of navigation, and the so-called “rules-based international order.” In 2021, the UK sent a warship through the Taiwan Strait for the first time in over a decade, citing “enduring security interests” in the region. In 2024, two German ships sailed through the Strait for the first time in over two decades. That same year, the French conducted their own such journey after the Dutch and U.S. navies conducted joint operations in the South China Sea.
European leaders should rethink such activities. The supposition that expanding joint military cooperation and activities between Europe and Asia would strengthen the rules-based international order and collective deterrence against China reflects misguided assumptions about deterrence and a counterproductive approach to ensuring established rules and norms prevail.
Deterrence requires the combination of sufficient military capabilities and political will. While the optics of more European vessels conducting joint maneuvers in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait alongside the U.S. and Asian partners may appear to improve deterrence against China, the reality is that at present Europeans hardly have the necessary resources to manage the Russian threat on their own, let alone to viably contribute to deterrence against China, a global superpower, in a far-flung, largely maritime-based theater. Moreover, if European states were not willing to intervene militarily on their own continent in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is presumable that those same states would be even more reluctant to intervene in a potential military conflict in faraway Asia.
Therefore, the symbolic presence of European vessels in Asian waters would actually do little, if anything, to help deter Chinese aggression. Such actions could arguably increase peacetime tensions and instability in Asia by creating more pretexts for China’s escalatory maritime activities. For instance, in June 2024, a Dutch naval patrol in the East China Sea was confronted by Chinese fighter jets, leading to a diplomatic spat between Beijing and Amsterdam. Thus far, China has shown no signs of moderating its assertive maritime posture in regional seas, despite significantly elevated naval cooperation between the U.S. and its Asia-Pacific allies in recent years. The involvement of European navies, most of which possess limited power projection capabilities, is unlikely to change this dynamic.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
Ultimately, the policy of interlinking the European and Asian security theaters is illogical and counterproductive. The reality is that neither NATO states nor U.S. Asian allies have the luxury of investing their capabilities and resources into the others’ military theater. Nor would doing so help strengthen regional deterrence.
As we wrote last year, Washington’s allies in Europe and Asia should prioritize conflict resolution and deterrence in their respective regions without needlessly interlinking the two. Given the increased concern across Europe about Russia’s military intentions, it would be far more helpful to the United States and the Europeans themselves if they put their resources where their mouth is and undertake the serious investments and reforms necessary for Europe to stand on its own two feet. This would eventually help allow the United States to commit the resources it requires for preserving deterrence in Asia. European military reforms and investment will also ensure that NATO’s European member states are valuable allies and can contribute to the collective defense. This is exactly what Vice President J.D. Vance spoke about in April when he said, “It’s not in Europe’s interest, and it’s not in America’s interest, for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States.”
The Europeans, with sustained American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support, are capable of ensuring their security while continuing to invest in their own defense industrial base and integrated force development. But this will require that European states maintain their focus on the Euro-Atlantic region and entrust their American ally and Asian partners with ensuring security in the Pacific.
