Germany changes its stance, Europe prepares for a "detachment from the US plan": NATO and the Strait of Hormuz, Europe wants to solve them itself.
```
Europe is accelerating the implementation of a set of defense contingency plans that do not rely on the US, covering both the NATO command structure and post-war arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz.
On April 14, reports stated that European countries are drafting a plan to form a broad coalition of nations to help reopen maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, including the deployment of minesweepers and other naval vessels.
However, this plan will only be implemented after the war ends. French President Macron stated on Tuesday that the plan is an international defense initiative that does not include ‘combatant parties’—meaning the US, Israel, and Iran.
At the NATO level, reports say European officials are fast-tracking what some are calling a "European NATO" plan, aimed at maintaining deterrence against Russia, operational continuity, and credible nuclear deterrence even if the US reduces or withdraws its military presence in Europe.
These two plans both reflect deep rifts within transatlantic relations.
During a recent NATO meeting, Trump called allied nations "cowards", labeled NATO a "paper tiger," and threatened to leave the alliance over Europe's refusal to support US military operations against Iran. This series of statements has significantly accelerated Europe's push for autonomous action.
The Hormuz Plan: Excluding the US, Launched After the War
On the Hormuz Strait issue, Europe is independently drafting a post-war escort plan to restore confidence in shipping through the strait.
Reportedly, the plan includes three phases: first, clearing hundreds of ships currently stranded in the strait; second, launching large-scale mine clearance operations to remove mines possibly laid by Iran in the early stages of the conflict; third, deploying frigates and destroyers for routine escort and surveillance missions.
Macron has publicly stated that this international defense mission should not include “combatant” nations such as the US, Israel, and Iran, and that European ships will not be placed under US command.
This Friday, Macron and UK Prime Minister Starmer will host an online conference involving dozens of countries to discuss how to restore control over the Strait of Hormuz after the conflict ends. The US is not invited.
Germany’s participation is a major highlight. According to a senior German official, Germany previously publicly opposed any military involvement, but now plans to join as an important member, possibly officially pledging its commitment as early as Thursday.
Germany has significant minesweeping capabilities, with around 12 minehunter and minesweeper vessels stationed at Kiel port, while the US has significantly reduced its own minesweeping fleet. Europe as a whole has more than 150 such ships. Germany can also contribute reconnaissance aircraft stationed in Djibouti.
However, divisions remain within Europe. British officials are concerned that excluding the US may anger Trump and limit the scope of the mission.
Additionally, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stressed that the mission can only be launched after hostilities cease and the situation stabilizes, and that coordination with littoral states like Iran and Oman is necessary—which means the mission cannot proceed without Iran’s consent.
The plan draws on the model of Operation ASPIDES, conducted by EU naval forces in the Red Sea in 2024, where several EU countries rotate providing escort vessels, operating independently and purely defensively to protect commercial shipping, differing from the larger, US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian.
Mujtaba Rahman, head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice, commented:
At some point, convoy systems or group escorts will be needed. Insurance companies and shippers are likely to demand such protection.
"European NATO": Structural Overhaul Faces Major Challenges
The "European NATO" plan is currently being pushed forward, with the core goal of getting more Europeans into NATO command and control posts and filling gaps that could be left by a US withdrawal with European military assets.
The plans were first floated last year and sped up after Trump threatened to take Greenland from NATO member Denmark.
Now, with Europe refusing to support US actions in Iran and the resulting standoff, the pressure to advance these plans has become more urgent. According to sources, these plans are progressing via informal talks and dinner meetings both within and outside NATO.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently said the alliance will be "more European-led." Finnish President Alexander Stubb, one of the leaders involved, said in an interview:
(The burdens of manpower, funding, and risk) are shifting from the US to Europe. The key is that this must proceed in a very orderly and controlled way, not (the US) withdrawing abruptly.
However, the challenges are formidable. The position of NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe has always been held by an American, and US officials say they have no intention of relinquishing the post.
European members’ chronic underspending on defense has left clear gaps in intelligence, satellite surveillance, anti-submarine warfare, space and reconnaissance, air refueling, and strategic airlift—shortfalls that cannot be fixed in the short term.
Retired US Admiral James Foggo said European officers are of high quality—“capable, with some hardware”—but need to speed up investment and capability-building.
As specific measures, European officials are pushing for more members to reintroduce conscription and accelerate joint development in key areas. Germany and the UK last month announced a joint project to develop stealth cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons, seen as an early result of the new cooperation framework.
Germany’s Shift: The Key Turning Point
For decades, Germany was the main obstacle to calls for European autonomous defense, preferring to view the US as Europe’s ultimate security guarantor. But this stance began to change under Chancellor Merz.
According to informed sources, from the end of last year Merz began reassessing this longstanding position, prompted by his assessment that Trump is ready to abandon Ukraine and can no longer provide clear value-based leadership for NATO policy.
Even so, he does not want to publicly challenge the alliance, but prefers to push for greater European responsibility within it. In the ideal scenario, the US remains in NATO, but the main defense burden gradually shifts to Europe.
Germany’s shift has opened the door to broader consensus. The UK, France, Poland, Nordic countries, and Canada subsequently joined, framing the contingency plan as a "like-minded coalition" within NATO. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated:
NATO is irreplaceable to both Europe and the US, but NATO must become more European if it is to retain its transatlantic character.
Germany’s inclusion also unlocked discussion of the most sensitive issue in Europe’s sovereign defense: replacing the US nuclear umbrella.
After Trump threatened to annex Greenland, Merz and Macron began discussing whether France’s nuclear deterrent could be extended to other European countries, including Germany.
Transatlantic Relations: Widening Rifts
Behind the parallel advancement of these two plans is the deterioration of transatlantic relations.
Trump has not only imposed extra tariffs on European exports and withdrawn support for Ukraine, but also threatened to use military force to seize Greenland from a NATO ally, Denmark, and has recently threatened to leave NATO again after European leaders refused to support his military actions against Iran.
Trump himself admitted that the Greenland dispute was the trigger for the rupture. Speaking about his threat to exit NATO, he said:
If you want to know the truth, everything started from Greenland. We wanted Greenland, they wouldn’t give it, so I said, 'All right, goodbye.'
Trump had demanded Europe participate in a blockade of Iranian ports to force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but Starmer and other European leaders refused, stating that Europe’s priority was to restore shipping, not further escalation.
In a sense, Europe’s current efforts to devise its own security arrangements are a response to Trump’s longstanding demands for allies to “take more responsibility”—only in a manner very different from what the US expected.
Risk disclosure and disclaimerThe market involves risks, and investment requires caution. This article does not constitute individual investment advice, nor does it take into account any specific user’s investment objectives, financial situation, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article suit their particular circumstances. Investment based on this is at your own risk. ```