The recent arm-sharing agreement with NATO does not address Europe’s woeful lack of defense capabilities.

The NATO-US deal allowing for European governments to purchase American weapons and send them to Ukraine shows promise as an alternative approach for Ukrainian rapid access to defense capabilities. What it doesn’t show promise towards is protecting American security priorities and long-term defense capabilities. Considering the current shortages in American stockpiles and the agreement’s failure to address long-term burden sharing within NATO and across the Atlantic, this deal should be recognized as a win for European security interests rather than a triumph for Washington.

Under the new deal, the Donald Trump administration has resumed providing military supplies to Ukraine via an arrangement where NATO members purchase armaments directly from the United States, most notably Patriot air defense systems, and distribute them to Ukraine. The Netherlands has already led the way in establishing new arms pipelines via this mechanism with its €500 million purchase of Patriot missiles and system parts, with other European states expected to follow suit.

At the core of this delivery mechanism is its solution to quickly restock European stockpiles and coordinate arms delivery to Ukraine, allowing European access to defensive military capabilities without depleting their own stockpiles. While this mechanism holds the potential for European countries to provide military aid to Ukraine rapidly, it is erroneous for American and European leaders to consider this deal anything more than a temporary solution to the deep-seated tensions within NATO.

The Trump administration should prioritize a long-term and sustainable solution for burden-sharing within NATO that places primary responsibility for weapons provision on European states, rather than kicking the can down the road with an agreement that ignores the real incongruity between European and American security priorities. Reducing American commitments to European security is a crucial first step toward establishing sustainable security frameworks for both European states and the United States, as US defense priorities continue to focus on concerns in the Indo-Pacific rather than on the Ukrainian border.

Instead of waiting for European leaders to reduce their dependencies on American weapons provisions, the Trump administration should prioritize doing less for European interests. Washington should make it clear to our European allies, many of which are wealthy and capable of protecting their own security interests, that Washington should not be expected to indefinitely ensure the continent’s defense, especially at a moment when America holds higher priorities in Asia and at home.

While US and European interests are certainly entangled, they are not one and the same. A sustainable deal must outline long-term burden sharing for NATO members and ultimately leave it to European leaders to decide the price they are willing to pay for their own security. The current deal fails to make any move towards delineating US and European interests, much less move towards more representative burden sharing. Aside from lining the pockets of American arms manufacturers, this deal is hollow in terms of American security interests.

More concerning is that the deal prioritizes access for European states at the stake of American stockpiles. While the Pentagon has recently refuted reports concerning diminished stockpiles of the Patriot missiles included in the NATO deal, defense experts highlight that there is little doubt that the stockpiles of certain critical weapons are low. Depleted stockpiles of Patriot missile interceptors were a major factor in the freeze on military aid to Ukraine in June, as current numbers indicate that American supplies only hold 25 percent of munitions needed for Pentagon defense plans. 

The United States is capable of producing 600 Patriot missile interceptors a year, and has deployed around 30 to counter Iranian attacks on US bases in Qatar. Moreover, other critical capabilities, such as long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, may also be facing shortages in supply caused by low production rates and high usage in strikes on Yemen’s Houthi rebels. The tally of Tomahawk munitions used against the Houthis indicates that 80 Tomahawk munitions were used in the first two days of Operation Prosperity Guardian in 2024, compared to the total 55 munitions procured by the Navy in 2023.

Considering the American strikes in Iran and the continued supply of arms to Israel and Ukraine over the past two years, protecting American stockpiles and ensuring the availability of critical material capabilities ought to be a central element of any arms deal Washington pursues within or outside of NATO. This deal does the opposite by prioritizing European peace of mind over American material capabilities and long-term planning.

Rather than patting themselves on the back for a job well done, policymakers in Washington should view the new NATO deal as a short-term solution for European interests. Regardless of events occurring in Ukraine, the Trump administration should reflect and act on delineating European interests from American priorities, and make clear to European leaders that the defense of Europe is primarily a European problem, not an American one.