Remarks by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby at the NATO Defense Ministerial

The full speech by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby is available at the Department of War’s Speeches page. In the speech, Colby outlines a fundamental shift in U.S. strategic thinking toward NATO, arguing that the post–Cold War model of the Alliance is no longer sustainable and that Europe must assume primary responsibility for its own conventional defense.

Highlights From Colby’s Speech

The End of the “Unipolar Moment”

As the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy make clear, we are now living through a period of profound strategic change that requires clear-eyed realism and fundamental adaptation by all of us. The world that shaped the habits, assumptions, and force posture of NATO during the so-called “unipolar moment” following the Cold War no longer exists. Power politics has returned, and military force is again being employed at a large scale.

From NATO 1.0 to NATO 2.0—and Why It Failed

Times have changed, and it is only prudent that we adapt to meet them. This is not an abandonment of NATO…Throughout the Cold War, “NATO 1.0” as we might describe it, was defined by a hard-nosed, realistic, clear-eyed approach to deterrence and defense…This model was tremendously successful. It made sure that the USSR never saw military aggression against the Western Alliance as a viable strategy.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, however, NATO transformed into something else – perhaps what one might call “NATO 2.0”. This version of the Alliance was typified by a shift of effort and focus away from Europe’s defense toward “out of area” operations and substantial disarmament on the continent…It is clear, however, that this approach of “NATO 2.0” is no longer fit for purpose – certainly not for the United States and, we would submit, not for our allies either.

The Case for “NATO 3.0”

What is needed is a “NATO 3.0” – something much closer to “NATO 1.0” than the approach of the last thirty-five years. This “NATO 3.0” requires much greater efforts by our allies to step up and assume primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe…The core strategic reality laid out by the NSS and NDS is this: Europe must assume primary responsibility for its own conventional defense…This is not a matter of ideology or rhetorical flourish. It is a conclusion grounded in a clear-eyed and rigorous assessment of the strategic environment we face as well as a pragmatic evaluation of the capabilities at our disposal.

Continuing to proclaim the shibboleths of “NATO 2.0” without a credible strategy for how to meet them would not help Europe – it would hurt it, by perpetuating expectations that cannot realistically be met…For Europe, it means moving beyond inputs and intentions toward outputs and capabilities…what matters at the end of the day is what those resources produce: ready forces, usable munitions, resilient logistics, and integrated command structures that work at scale under stress.

U.S. Commitments Under NATO 3.0

For the United States, our responsibility is to be clear, candid, and consistent. We will continue to provide the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent. And we will also continue, in a more limited and focused fashion, to provide conventional capabilities that contribute to NATO’s defense…We will continue to train, exercise, and plan alongside our allies. And we in the Department of War will continue to ready our forces to do our part under Article V with Europe taking the lead for its conventional defense.

There is nothing anti-European about this vision. To the contrary, it reflects hope and indeed confidence in Europe’s capacity to act substantially and vigorously. This is the message of the National Security and National Defense Strategies: We want, as Secretary Rubio has laid out, strong and confident allies in Europe and beyond. We want partnerships, not dependencies.

Reflections

Colby’s speech is one of the clearest official articulations to date on the strategic rebalancing within NATO. His message is that deterrence remains the Alliance’s core purpose, but credibility requires a return to Cold War realism. For a useful companion lens on why this shift is showing up now, checkout David Maxwell’s SWJ article, “The 2025 National Security Strategy and the 2026 National Defense Strategy Through the Eyes of a Special Forces Soldier.”