The strategic pivot by Washington is unmistakable. Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense, has resurrected a threat vector that European capitals hoped was buried: a comprehensive review of American force posture on the continent. This is not diplomatic posturing.
It is a calculated signal that the United States is prepared to recalibrate its commitments, and the implications for the United Kingdom are dire. For decades, the UK has structured its defence around the assumption of a robust US forward presence in Europe. That assumption is now in question.
The review, according to sources close to the Pentagon, will assess the operational necessity of every major base, from Ramstein to Mildenhall. The logic is cold and strategic: if US forces are to pivot toward the Indo-Pacific, Europe must bear more of the burden for its own defence. But the UK's geographic position, its reliance on US intelligence and logistics, and the deep integration of its command structures mean this is not a simple case of burden-sharing.
It is a potential rupture in the alliance's deterrence posture. The intelligence failure here would be to view this as a mere negotiating tactic. Hegseth is a hardliner.
He has long argued that Nato allies have underinvested in collective defence, and he sees the review as leverage to force an increase in defence spending. Yet the risk is that the review becomes self-fulfilling: if Washington signals it is prepared to draw down, allies will begin to hedge, undermining the very unity the review purports to strengthen. The UK must now consider its own strategic pivot.
The Royal Navy, already stretched, would face a significant capability gap if US naval assets were redeployed. The nuclear deterrent, while independent, relies on US support for maintenance and delivery systems. A US withdrawal from Europe would not be a clean break.
It would be a phased degradation of interoperability. The immediate threat vector is information warfare. Moscow will exploit this divide.
Russian intelligence will amplify any signs of transatlantic friction, seeking to weaken Nato's collective resolve. The UK's response must be twofold: first, to increase its own defence expenditure to a credible level above the 2.5% GDP threshold, and second, to deepen bilateral defence cooperation with European partners outside the Nato framework.
The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review was a disaster for UK military readiness. Another such miscalculation now would be catastrophic. The hardware is not the problem.
The will is. Hegseth's ultimatum is a wake-up call: the US is no longer the reliable guarantor of European security. The UK must prepare for a world where it stands alone, or it must bind itself more tightly to a European defence structure it has long resisted.
Either path carries immense risk. The immediate task is to assess the intelligence. Is this a real threat or a bluff?
The betting is on the former. The time for complacency is over.
