As the United States braces for a potential confrontation with China, discussions among U.S. officials at the upcoming 2025 NATO Summit are gaining critical attention.
NATO members are positioned to play a significant role in any crisis involving China, particularly in hotspots such as Taiwan or the Philippines.
However, their involvement may not necessarily revolve around direct military engagement alongside the U.S., but rather in helping to manage global security commitments to better allocate American forces towards the Asia-Pacific region.
Despite the importance of European states participating in Asian security, significant challenges lie ahead.
With China standing as the European Union’s second largest trade partner—after the United States—Asian security concerns may take a backseat as European states remain focused on their immediate threats, particularly from Russia.
Moreover, European military capabilities are limited and currently under scrutiny, prompting questions on their ability to contribute effectively to U.S. objectives in Asia.
Additionally, varying relationships with China across NATO member states range from economic camaraderie—seen in nations like Hungary—to apprehensive stances adopted by countries such as the United Kingdom.
In December 2019, NATO’s first significant statement addressing China highlighted the nation as presenting both “opportunities and challenges.”
However, the dynamics shifted post-Russia-Ukraine war, with NATO demonstrating a more critical stance toward China, as evidenced during the 2024 NATO Summit and discussions outlined in the NATO 2030 agenda.
Supporting this critical perspective is NATO’s intention to solidify partnerships with key allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea (collectively known as the IP4).
Japan has emerged as a focal point in NATO’s strategy, marking its presence by participating in ministerial meetings since 2020, illustrating a growing alignment with Western strategic goals.
In the event of hostilities between the U.S. and China, American support from NATO allies will prove invaluable.
The shared partnership between China and Russia, characterized as a “no limits” alliance, underscores the need for the U.S. to secure robust backing from its allies.
While European military capabilities may not significantly enhance U.S. efforts in Asia, they can fulfill several essential roles during various contingencies involving China.
Pre-conflict measures could include conducting joint freedom of navigation operations and military exercises with the United States in the Indo-Pacific, thus conveying political support and solidarity.
The symbolic act of Europe participating in these endeavors possesses political weight, even if the military contributions appear minimal.
For instance, should a UK frigate be fired upon or German troops engaged, it would draw those nations directly into the conflict, amplifying risks for China and strengthening the U.S. deterrent stance.
Secondly, despite European militaries’ current relative weaknesses, their capability potential remains significant due to extensive economies and populations.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has invigorated NATO states, many of which are increasing their defense expenditures.
European allies have already extended substantial support to Ukraine through air defense systems, tanks, and training for over 70,000 troops.
Redirecting U.S. military support to Asian theaters will create gaps in resources, such as artillery, air defenses, and intelligence.
Therefore, to preempt such shortages, the U.S. should encourage European nations to ramp up military production and innovation as they prepare for scenarios demanding rapid U.S. resource reallocation.
Thirdly, European nations can provide arms and support to allies in Asia, enact economic sanctions, and otherwise assist in weakening China’s influence.
With U.S. stockpiles strained due to commitments in Ukraine and the Middle East, Europe could utilize its defense industrial base to supply additional weaponry, thereby alleviating some of the burden from American inventories, if necessary.
Past collaborations between the U.S. and European Union on sanctions against Russia and China indicate a solid foundation for further coordinated action, reinforcing deterrence through strategic communication with Beijing.
Moreover, the presence of allied nations is vital in boosting U.S. political support for intervention, helping to sustain public backing in the face of fluctuating approval rates over operations in Asia.
In addition to direct engagement with China, European states can shoulder more responsibilities in the Middle East and Europe itself.
This could entail enhancing military production to support Ukraine while the U.S. reallocates limited supplies towards the Pacific, strengthening collaborations with Gulf states to deter Iran, and leveraging European forces to enable U.S. troop mobility.
For successful operations in the Middle East, European nations will need to expand their military basing and access in the region, and the U.S. ought to encourage Gulf states and other regional allies to cooperate more closely with Europe.
Regardless of how Europe chooses to engage, its decisions profoundly impact capability development.
The U.S. must clearly outline its expectations, steering away from vague calls for increased contributions.
Instead, a defined approach identifying essential roles for Europe should be adopted, integrating European inputs into the broader planning process.
Through this strategy, Europe can effectively contribute by signaling its political and material support, facilitating U.S. strategic focus on Asia.
The upcoming 2025 NATO Summit serves as an opportune moment to ignite crucial conversations surrounding these roles.
image source from：csis
