The Review That Is a Threat: Hegseth, Brussels’ Loudmouth Who Leaves Before Zelenskyy Arrives

In Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a six month review of American troops in Europe, insulted the allies, and left the room before the work began. Whoever judges the loyalty of others first shows how little they themselves can be relied upon.

In Brussels on Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a six month review of American troops in Europe, the outcome of which would depend on how quickly Europeans assume responsibility for their own security. It would be a real test, he said, meant to ensure that the alliance moves rapidly and irreversibly toward a model in which Europe leads and carries the main burden of its own defense. Some countries would fail, others would pass with distinction. That was how a minister spoke to allies, as though they were sitting in his classroom. For Europeans and Canada, the threat was another surprise in dealing with a partner that has become increasingly unreliable. Officials and senior military officers had promised that any withdrawal would be coordinated closely. Only a few weeks ago, the Trump administration declared that it would no longer support an attacked member to the same extent as before, forcing allies to scramble for substitutes to fill the gap. For months, signals from Washington have contradicted one another over whether America intends to reduce or expand its presence in Europe, while at the same time the threat remains in the background to annex Greenland, a semi autonomous island belonging to ally Denmark.

In sharp language, Hegseth accused Europeans of denying American forces access to bases for strikes on Iran, calling it disgraceful. These allies, he said, put America’s sons and daughters at risk by denying them reliable access to bases and overflight rights that should never have been in question. That too would become part of the review, whether access and overflight rights exist whenever they are needed.

“For too long, NATO has been a paper tiger and a one way street. That ends now.”

While defense ministers and military officers sat in silence, Hegseth attacked Europe’s migration and gender equality policies in a tone that echoed remarks Vice President JD Vance had made in February of the previous year and that had angered many Europeans. Instead of focusing on tanks and air defense, and also fighter aircraft, Europe had focused on gender equity and climate change, as well as defense austerity. Europe’s borders had swung open, welfare states had expanded, defense budgets had collapsed, and with them Europe’s belief in itself and in its civilization.

Most of this had little connection to reality. The allies and Canada have undertaken an unprecedented effort to increase spending and expand their armed forces. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte pointed out that ninety billion dollars more had been spent on defense last year, an increase of one fifth compared with 2024. And although Europe admitted large numbers of migrants and asylum seekers more than a decade ago, most countries have tightened their borders since then. None of this suggests a promising atmosphere ahead of the summit of heads of state and government on July 7 and 8 in Turkey.

It was a rare visit, his first this year after Hegseth skipped a meeting in February. This time as well, he did not stay long. He left before the gathering had ended and hours before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was due to ask allies for more weapons for his country. At the airport he added that it had been great to hear one country after another promise to meet its goals. A few remained outside the line, and with them discussions would become very direct during the review. The man handing out grades was already on the plane when the one asking for his country’s survival arrived.

Behind the loud performance stands a quieter reality. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Alexus Grynkewich, has been working on contingency plans for Europe’s defense since Washington announced on June 3 that in an emergency it would no longer provide an aircraft carrier and accompanying ships, nor aerial refueling aircraft nor dozens of fighter jets. The Trump administration insists that it must plan for two simultaneous conflicts and wants to preserve resources for a possible confrontation with China in the Indo Pacific. Under Article 5, an attack on one of the thirty two allies is considered an attack on all, but it does not require military assistance, and that is precisely the support America is now scaling back.

And Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO::

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte confirmed that defense ministers had “agreed” to a reboot of the military alliance after the United States announced a new review of its troop deployments in Europe.

The nuclear weapons, however, remain. America maintains by far the largest military force in the alliance and has no intention of withdrawing its nuclear weapons from Europe, which remain the heart of deterrence. For the first time in nineteen years, the Nuclear Planning Group issued a statement and called strategic forces the ultimate guarantee of security on which extended deterrence rests, and the ministers agreed to modernize nuclear capabilities and strengthen planning. Rutte played the matter down, saying that the force model was merely a planning tool, not a picture of what would happen if war broke out, because then everyone would commit everything they had. Some countries were already replacing capabilities, others were almost there. He said they were in a good place. Perhaps that is what remains of an alliance when words take the place of action, a grade for some and a planning tool for others, and a bomb that stays while trust leaves.

Anyone who mistakes this for diplomacy never understood the word. It comes from the Ancient Greek díploma, the folded document, the sealed certificate that in antiquity granted permission to travel and certified relationships. In Latin it remained an official authentication, and when French turned it into diplomatie, it originally meant nothing more than the orderly maintenance of relations among rulers. Only in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did it become the art of mediation through negotiation and compromise between states. At its origin there was no peace and no compromise, but a relationship governed by a guaranteed document, a given word folded and sealed. What was visible in Brussels had nothing in common with that. It was the opposite of the certificate, a word that guarantees nothing because the man who spoke it was already leaving. In the end, a partner who tests the loyalty of others while failing to show his own cannot be relied upon.