Tag Archives: NATO

Europe

Small Craft, Big Impact: Ukraine’s Naval War and the Rise of New-Tech Warships

1 Comment

By David Kirichenko

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shocked the international order. What surprised the world even more was Ukraine’s ability to resist. While many in the West believed Ukraine would only hold out for a few weeks, the war has now entered its fourth year. Ukraine has relied on agility and innovation – especially in its use of drones and battlefield technology – to fend off Russian forces. This technological edge has extended beyond land warfare to the sea.

Over the past few years, Ukraine’s growing use of naval drones has pushed both sides to rapidly adapt, accelerating the race for countermeasures and maritime innovation. NATO would do well to study Ukraine’s approach as it prepares for the future of warfare at sea. Rear Admiral James Parkin, the Royal Navy’s director of development, notes that in 28 maritime battles, the larger fleet won all but three. Parkin believed that larger fleets win, but Ukraine has changed that paradigm, for now. The future of naval warfare is here and Ukraine is demonstrating what the future looks like.

Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief and current ambassador to the U.K., stated, “I have repeated many times that the nature of modern warfare has changed and continues to change.” Zaluzhnyi added, “The nature of modern warfare is far from what NATO is now operating.”

Ukraine’s Naval Lessons

At the outset of the war, Ukraine’s navy was virtually nonexistent, having lost most of its fleet when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Its only major warship, the frigate Hetman Sahaidachny, was scuttled by Ukrainian forces in February 2022 to prevent its capture. Yet through asymmetric tactics – naval drones, coastal missile strikes, and aerial attacks – Ukraine has transformed the Black Sea battlefield, forcing Russia into retreat and reclaiming strategic control of key waters around Ukraine’s coast.

Serhii Kuzan, chair of the think tank Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center and a former adviser to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, explained that even before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine understood it could not match Russia in conventional naval strength.1 As a result, it adopted an asymmetric strategy focused on coastal missile systems, small vessels, and air support. After 2022, sea drones were added to this concept and have since become the navy’s primary strike weapon at sea. These unmanned systems emerged out of necessity, filling the gap left by the absence of a traditional fleet.

Ukraine is now rebuilding its navy around a fleet of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), making sea drones central to its maritime strategy. When Russia attempted to blockade Ukrainian shipping, Kyiv responded swiftly with sea drone strikes. Even after the Russian Navy retreated from occupied Crimea to the safety of its mainland ports, Ukrainian USVs continued to harass and damage its fleet.

Following the sea drone offensive in 2023, Former US Navy Admiral James George Stavridis noted, “We’re at a juncture in military evolution akin to the game-changers like Agincourt or Pearl Harbor. Expensive manned surface warships now face existential threats from affordable drones.” The Ukrainians issued a warning in August 2023 that “There are no more safe waters or peaceful harbors for you in the Black and Azov Seas.” The Russians eventually learned to heed that warning and hid from Ukraine’s sea drones. According to Roy Gardiner, an open source weapons researcher and former Canadian Armed Forces officer, “These asymmetric victories have forced the relocation of the Russian Fleet to the eastern Black Sea, and broke the blockade to reopen the vital grain export routes.”

Ukraine’s drones have even achieved the unprecedented. By January 2025, modified Magura V5 sea drones armed with heat-seeking missiles shot down two Russian Mi-8 helicopters and damaged a third off the coast of Crimea – marking the first time a naval drone successfully downed enemy aircraft. In May 2025, Ukraine stunned the world by using sea drones equipped with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, each worth about $300,000 to shoot down two Russian fighter jets, each worth $50 million. The Ukrainian sea drones themselves are worth only several hundred thousand dollars. HI Sutton, a naval warfare expert wrote, “The success of Ukraine’s uncrewed surface drones (USVs) cannot be overstated. They are rewriting the rules of naval warfare.”

A Magura V5 maritime drone. (Photo by Daniyar Sarsenov/Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine)

Ukrainian forces are increasingly adapting these drones for multi-role capabilities, equipping them with missile launchers and advanced payloads. Ukraine has effectively turned its USVs into robotic drone carriers capable of launching explosive FPV drones at Russian coastal targets. One of Ukraine’s latest sea drones, can launch up to four quadcopter First-Person View (FPV) drones and may carry naval mines, enabling complex multi-phase attacks. Ukrainian intelligence recently announced that their sea drones have been upgraded to carry over a ton of explosives and can now operate across distances exceeding 1,000 kilometers (about 621 miles), significantly expanding their strike range and lethality across the Black Sea. “We completely blocked the Russian Black Sea fleet in the water area near the port of Novorossiysk,” said Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s defense intelligence (HUR). He added that said the Russian fleet can no longer come out to the open waters.

“The cost of USVs such as Magura V5 and Sea Baby is about $250,000, which is inexpensive relative to their significant tactical and strategic success,” said Gardiner. “With naval targets gone from the western Black Sea, some Ukrainian USVs have transitioned to FPV carriers and launched successful attacks on multiple radars and air defense systems in Crimea.”

According to Kuzan, sea drones have emerged as one of Ukraine’s most effective tools against the Russian fleet. Ukrainian unmanned systems have struck Russian ships and boats 21 times, with 10 vessels confirmed destroyed and several others severely damaged. As a result, Russian naval forces have lost the initiative at sea and are now largely confined to operating near the ports of Sevastopol in occupied Crimea and Novorossiysk on the Russian mainland. Kuzan highlighted that these drone strikes have also enabled Ukraine to reopen the grain corridor despite Russia’s withdrawal from the agreement, effectively restoring maritime trade.

Despite Ukraine’s impressive string of successes at sea, Russia has begun mounting a more effective defense. According to Ukrainian Navy Commander Oleksiy Neizhpapa, Moscow has built a multi-layered system around key locations like Sevastopol Bay, including long-, medium-, and short-range detection zones designed to identify and destroy incoming sea drones. “In the past, we could easily enter Sevastopol Bay with our drones,” Neizhpapa said.

“Now it’s not so simple because the enemy has established a tiered defense system.” In response, Ukraine is working to upgrade its unmanned systems with more advanced weaponry and modular designs that can adapt to rapidly evolving threats. Russia has adapted but by bringing out its ships into the open sea, meaning that the success rate of Ukraine’s sea drones has also dropped. According to Gardiner, “Naval vessels have been equipped with thermal vision systems to better combat Ukrainian USV nighttime attacks.” 

The naval drone war is also becoming more symmetric: Russian forces are beginning to deploy their own sea drones. “They are gearing up for it,” Neizhpapa warned, “so we are preparing not only to deploy drones against the enemy but also to defend against them.” 

Gregory Falco, an autonomous systems and cybersecurity expert at Cornell University, commented on the design balance between sophistication and scale. According to Falco,

“The sea is a highly dynamic environment so it has been a more difficult domain to design robust and reliable systems for. Given Ukraine’s people-constrained navy, they have relied on unmanned systems which Ukraine has adeptly made cost efficiently and therefore largely disposable. The sophistication of this technology right now is less important than its scale and cost. Scale for drones is what will help win wars.”

The war in the Black Sea shows how asymmetric innovation can shift the balance of power. Despite having no traditional fleet, Ukraine has dealt major blows to a superior naval force using low-cost, adaptable technology. Dmitry Gorenburg, a researcher with the Center for Naval Analyses, remarked that,

“Russia has been forced to erect barriers for harbor protection, which have been relatively effective. But Ukraine showed that it could still damage Russian ships at sea. In the future, the cost asymmetry between cheap drones and expensive ships will mean that even a low success rate will prove highly damaging to naval forces, including Russia. The advantage of having a powerful navy will thus be somewhat decreased.”

However, Kuzan stresses that drones alone cannot provide full control over maritime space. A balanced navy remains essential. Looking ahead, Ukraine’s future fleet will likely combine Ada-class corvettes, missile boats, and coastal defense systems, with sea drones continuing to serve as the main offensive force.

Adaptability and Technology

Moreover, both China and Russia “are surging ahead in the realm of small drones, while the United States moves at a relatively glacial pace,” the Modern War Institute at West Point noted in a March 2024 report. Deborah Fairlamb, founding partner of Ukraine-focused venture capital firm Green Flag Ventures said, “I still believe that the West really does not understand how much warfare has changed.” Fairlamb pointed out the rapid technological advancements on the battlefield, increased mass production, and the decreasing cost of effective weaponry – such as $500 drones that can take out a $5m tank, a $30m radar system.”

Now, the U.S. Navy is embracing unmanned systems with urgency, spurred by lessons from Ukraine’s naval drone success and asymmetrical threats like the Houthis in the Red Sea. Ukraine is already working closely with artificial intelligence (AI) and is rapidly reshaping modern warfare, particularly through machine vision in drones and ground platforms, allowing for autonomous targeting. Ukraine is at the forefront of this transformation, with over 90 percent of AI military technologies coming from domestic developers, including swarming drone systems.

​​Ukraine is placing innovation at the heart of its defense strategy, leveraging homegrown technologies to stay ahead on the battlefield. Mykhailo Fedorov, the country’s minister of digital transformation, emphasized this approach in a speech at the The NATO-Ukraine Defense Innovators Forum:

“In Ukraine, we fight with innovations made in Ukraine. It is a constant work, a continuous R&D process, solving logistical problems with components and looking for solutions five steps ahead. Ukraine is already the best R&D center for any innovation. Today we get a technology for testing, and tomorrow we will scale it hundreds of times.”

Ukraine’s defense tech sector is accelerating rapidly under the pressure of war, driving battlefield innovation in drones, robotics, AI, electronic warfare, and demining systems. Platforms like the government-backed Brave1 fast-track promising technologies – by providing funding, testing, and streamlined certification, bypassing the slow procurement systems common in the West. “I always tell our American and other international partners: if your drone hasn’t been tested in Ukraine, it’s still just a toy,” said Oleksandra Ustinova, a Ukrainian member of parliament.

Economics of War

Modern warfare is now a battle of economics and scale, where the key metric is no longer troop numbers, but the cost and quantity of systems deployed. Cheap, one-way drones costing under $1,000 have become central to the fighting in Ukraine and elsewhere, capable of destroying far more expensive targets. As Christian Brose noted in The Kill Chain, U.S. military dominance has long relied on costly platforms like tanks, stealth fighters, and aircraft carriers. First-person view drones invert that model, using cheap, smart, networked machines to challenge the traditional military-industrial complex. As the U.S. continues to rely on high-cost systems, adversaries like China, Russia, and even non-state actors are leveraging mass-produced, inexpensive drones and missiles to inflict outsized damage at a fraction of the cost.

Andy Yakulis, a former Army special operations commander, highlighted how expensive the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier is at $13 billion, with other platforms, “such as the F-35, costing between $80m to $100m per aircraft. While the U.S. was building such systems, China has been focused on cheaper systems that, in mass, can destroy these large systems.” Yakulis further pointed out that in the Red Sea, the U.S. Navy has been using two $1 million missiles to shoot down Houthi drones that cost just $40,000 each. That means the cost of the drone is only about two percent of the price of the missiles needed to destroy it.

“Our adversaries use $10,000 one-way drones that we shoot down with $2 million missiles,” said Army Gen. Bryan P. Fenton. “That cost benefit curve is upside down.” The Houthis in under two months were also able to shoot down $200 million worth of U.S. drones in the Yemen conflict.

Taiwan is Taking Note

Taiwan has also recently unveiled its first uncrewed surface vessel (USV), the Endeavor Manta, developed specifically for naval defense in the Taiwan Strait. Built by CSBC Corporation, the vessel is designed for swarm operations, can carry light torpedoes and a warhead for kamikaze-style strikes, and includes autonomous navigation, AI target recognition, and anti-hijacking features. Inspired by Ukraine’s use of naval drones, the Manta is part of Taiwan’s broader strategy to counter Chinese military superiority through low-cost, asymmetric warfare, joining a growing global trend of using drones as force multipliers in modern conflicts. Alessio Patalano, Professor of War and Strategy at King’s College, London, noted that relying on weapons that are cheaper and easier to acquire will be critical to helping Taiwan defend itself against a potential Chinese invasion.

The Endeavor Manta USV during the launch event held in the port of Kaohsiung in southern Taiwan. (Photo via Taiwan Ministry of National Defense)

Rather than attempting to match China’s drone production, Hunter Keeley of the U.S. Marine Corps suggested Taiwan should adopt Ukraine’s targeted approach: deploying naval drones and missiles in focused, intelligence-led strikes near expected landing zones. A limited, layered Hellscape – centered on drones, jammers, and mobile sensors – could significantly disrupt PLA amphibious operations and buy Taiwan critical time in the opening stages of a conflict.

According to Kuzan, “Taiwan already benefits from U.S. support and has its own advanced defense industry, which is testing both surface and underwater maritime drones. For example, Taiwan’s Smart Dragon underwater drone is reportedly armed with torpedo systems.” He believes that incorporating torpedoes into Ukrainian sea drones could be the next step in their development. Kuzan remarked that, “If the opportunity and necessity arise, Ukraine could potentially sell or exchange its military technologies with Taiwan. This would be mutually beneficial, allowing both countries to enhance their capabilities.”

China and Russia Prepare

Russia is also taking notes. While it has significantly lagged behind Ukraine in naval drone warfare, it is now preparing for the future at sea. At the Army-2024 defense show, Russia unveiled the Murena-300S, a new naval drone resembling Ukraine’s successful sea drones. With a 500 km range, the fast and compact USV is built for coastal missions such as reconnaissance, mine-laying, and strike operations, possibly with a large explosive payload. The Murena appears to feature a Starlink antenna, suggesting Russia is seeking to match Ukraine’s real-time drone control capabilities.

The Russians have learned hard lessons from Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare and are now applying those insights more rapidly. Russia is creating unmanned systems regiments within its Navy that will integrate aerial, ground, and maritime drones to carry out reconnaissance and strike missions across all fleets. These new units, equipped with systems like Orlans, Lancets, FPVs, and USVs, are expected to form the backbone of the Navy’s unmanned component, with deployments planned across the European, Pacific, Caspian, and Dnieper naval forces.

At the same time, Russia is steadily advancing toward the development of AI-enabled autonomous drone swarms. It is investing heavily in AI research, both domestically and through partnerships with countries like Iran and China. Russia is focusing its efforts on leveraging cheap, scalable drone technology to overwhelm adversaries. This can be applied to the battle at sea as well. If the U.S. aims to deploy large expensive ships across the Asia-Pacific, we could see our adversaries working together to deploy cheap drones to destroy the ships.

China has also unveiled the Feiyi drone earlier this year, the world’s first known aerial and underwater drone capable of launching from a submarine, transitioning between air and sea multiple times, and returning to its original platform.

Preparing NATO for the Future

In a February 2025 interview, Anduril founder Palmer Luckey laid out bold ideas for revitalizing the U.S. defense industry and countering China’s growing military threat. He argued that the U.S. should shift from “world police” to “world’s gun store,” prioritizing mass production of weapons over elite, slow-to-build systems. Citing China’s massive manufacturing capacity and militarized civilian infrastructure, Luckey warned that Beijing is preparing for full-scale war, including repurposing commercial ships and producing cruise missiles far faster than the U.S.

Warfare is rapidly evolving into a battle of algorithms and adaptability. If the West clings to its old-school model of building massive, slow-to-deploy systems, it risks a harsh wake-up call – where billion-dollar warships are struck down by sea drones costing a fraction of that. In this new era, speed, scale, and software will determine who dominates the battlefield. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was unprepared for how quickly warfare would evolve, and how drones would come to dominate the skies.

Now Ukraine has amassed a massive war-time video dataset, over 2 million hours of drone footage through its OCHI system, which collects and analyzes feeds from 15,000 frontline drone crews. This data is being used to train AI for battlefield applications such as target recognition, weapon effectiveness analysis, and autonomous drone tactics.

Kuzan believes that Ukraine is already working on building AI technologies for its sea drones as well. “Notably, during the successful maritime drone attack on December 31, 2024, which resulted in the destruction of Russian helicopters, many researchers speculated that AI was used to enhance target identification and missile guidance,” said Kuzan.

NATO should work closely with Ukraine on the development of these models to prepare its own autonomous sea drones to deploy them in future conflicts. The UK-built Kraken3, inspired by Ukraine’s battlefield innovations, was recently unveiled, showcasing AI-powered swarming capabilities, kamikaze drone launches, and GPS-free navigation, reflecting how Ukrainian success is already influencing NATO procurement.

NATO itself has begun expanding its unmanned maritime capabilities, recently demonstrating autonomous surface vessels in the Baltic Sea through Task Force X, an initiative designed to deter sabotage and fill surveillance gaps. But these sea drones are focused on addressing the threat of Russian sabotage. More practical drones are needed to help disable enemy warships, such as in the event of a Chinese blockade of Taiwan. Expensive systems will no longer do the job. Cheap and scalable solutions are what is needed for NATO. Some in the U.S. are already thinking about how naval warfare is being transformed. For example, the U.S.-based Anduril has unveiled the Seabed Sentry – a network of AI-powered mobile undersea sensor nodes designed for persistent monitoring and undersea kill chains.

Lithuania is leading by example as it is moving toward shared sea drone production with Ukraine under a “1+1” model, where one Magura-class sea drone would be retained for Lithuania’s defense and the other delivered to Ukraine. “Whether you want to believe it or not, whether you have or are about to sign contracts for tanks and helicopters for the next 10 years, the nature of military power has already changed,” said Zaluzhnyi.

Today, Ukraine’s sea drones control a significant extent of the Black Sea. In a future conflict over the Arctic or the Asia-Pacific, we can expect an even greater surge – a true sea of drones. As Ukraine’s navy chief put it, “After the war we will certainly write a textbook and we’ll send it to all the NATO military academies.”

David Kirichenko is an Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. His work on warfare has been featured in the Atlantic Council, Center for European Policy Analysis, and the Modern Warfare Institute, among many others. He can be found on X/Twitter @DVKirichenko.

References

1. This article draws on interviews conducted by the author from the period of March-April 2025.

Featured Image: A Ukrainian military counterintelligence brigadier general walks on a new Sea Baby “Avdiivka” naval drone, during its presentation by the Ukrainian security service, in the Kyiv region, on March 5, 2024. (Photo by Evgenniy Maloletka/AP)

NATO Week

A Post-Mortem of the Red Sea Crisis: NATO versus the European Union

2 Comments

NATO Naval Power Week

By Anna Matilde Bassoli

After more than a year of disrupted global trade, the Red Sea Crisis appears to have no end in sight. Rather, in a series of leaked messages, senior U.S. officials have cast doubts over U.S. involvement and “having to bail Europe out again.” However, while frustration on each side of the pond is understandable, emotions fail to address the root causes of growing transatlantic distrust. The disjointed approach of the U.S. and the European Union to the Red Sea Crisis deserves thorough analysis as a critical yet overlooked cause of transatlantic distress. Indeed, the issue between the transatlantic allies is not who has to bail out whom. Instead, the emergence of the European Union (EU) as a security actor in the maritime domain has weakened the U.S. grip on NATO’s naval strategy. A coherent NATO naval strategy requires the United States and its European allies to align their postures, without the EU as the third wheel.

On December 18, 2023, the United States called upon allies to respond to the Houthi attacks on global shipping with the US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian. This multinational coalition was intended to include the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and others. However, only the UK, Canada, and Norway upheld their commitment. A few days after this announcement, most European navies withdrew to join the EU-led Operation Aspides, an overlapping defensive mission. Specifically, European navies explicitly rejected US leadership and command in an unprecedented transatlantic schism. The establishment of the EU-led Operation Aspides has resulted in a divided naval commitment and undermined efforts in the Red Sea Crisis in three crucial ways.

First, this divided effort has effectively deprived Prosperity Guardian of European naval assets over the past year. The Italian Navy has committed two destroyers and two frigates to Aspides, contrary to the single frigate initially announced in support of Prosperity Guardian. The French Navy has provided three frigates to Aspides, while it remains unclear what role they would have played in Prosperity Guardian. Similarly, the German and Belgian navies each contributed a frigate. Other European navies have divided their limited commitments between both missions, although it is unclear under which command. For example, the Hellenic Navy provided two frigates to Aspides, while the Royal Netherlands Navy contributed one frigate, a joint support ship, and aviation assets. Even the newest members of NATO, Sweden and Finland, have shown inconsistent commitment, with both countries providing only limited personnel. Despite its initial commitment to the US-led effort, Spain made no contributions. Interestingly, however, Spain’s ports benefited from the crisis, placing the country in an ambiguous position.

These commitments – or lack thereof – contrast sharply with the United Kingdom’s contribution to Prosperity Guardian during the same timeframe. In addition to the destroyers HMS Diamond and HMS Duncan, the Royal Navy provided two frigates and critical air support. While this still pales compared to the US show of force, it demonstrates the UK’s consistency in its transatlantic commitment. The other European powers cannot claim to have done similarly. The Danish Navy, for instance, sent the HDMS Iver Huitfeldt, but ship malfunctions plagued its performance, resulting in the dismissal of the Danish chief of defense. Furthermore, the French Navy has prioritized French-linked vessels, indicating that national interests rather than transatlantic ones drive their participation.

Second, the European decision to withdraw from participation in Prosperity Guardian shows how Europe was already veering towards strategic autonomy before the Trump administration came to the White House. Upon announcement, the Italian Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense specified that Italy, France, and Germany were pushing for an EU-only operation of a purely defensive nature, without land strikes. This European insistence on going solo deserves a deep dive. For starters, Europeans have criticized the Trump administration’s stance on transatlantic relations in recent weeks, calling for renewed unity. However, the lack of European support for the US-led effort demonstrates that European conduct has been inconsistent with their leaders’ rhetoric and parallel maritime commitments. For instance, Europeans have been eager to participate in Indo-Pacific exercises and showcase these efforts as a sign of strong friendship. In the same breath, Spain has actively participated in NATO exercises in the Mediterranean. However, a key question arises: how can the United States truly trust its European allies if they only show up to train and not to engage?

In this respect, the US offensive approach against the European defensive posture demonstrates that the transatlantic allies could not be more distant. By the time European navies were rotating their naval forces in the summer of 2024, some commentators had already started casting doubts on the effectiveness of Prosperity Guardian as a purely defensive mission. In response to this lack of results, the United States doubled down on eliminating the Houthi threat and deterring further attacks with strikes on Houthi positions in Yemen under Operation Poseidon Archer. Once again, however, European commitment has been limited, and preference has been given to the defensive posture of Operation Aspides. The problem plagues transatlantic relations is not the Trump administration’s aggressive stance towards Europe. Rather, the lack of entente between the US’s forward-leaning posture and the EU’s defense posture has eroded trust and partnership across the Atlantic.

Third, the US’s lack of acknowledgment of the EU as a security actor has undermined its efforts. Most recently, Michael C. DiCianna has argued that “Europe needs to fight the Houthis.” However, his analysis focuses only on Prosperity Guardian, as if it were the only ongoing operation in the Red Sea, incorrectly accounting for the European contribution. Similarly, Doug Livermore acknowledges European contributions but employs a US-only perspective to make the case for using force in the Red Sea Crisis. Neither of these authors seems to grasp the actual problem. It is not that Europe does not fight – from the European perspective, they are protecting sea lines of communication (SLOCs). Rather, the European and US perspectives on transatlantic security and interests do not align.

This analytical bias highlights two major problems in the US debate. First, it shows that the United States only views Europe through NATO lenses, while Europeans increasingly look to the EU to bolster their security needs. Operation Prosperity Guardian and Operation Aspides began while transatlantic relations were still good. So, why did the Europeans part ways with the United States? The most evident answer points to European strategic autonomy, meaning a European defensive approach for European interests within the EU.

As evident in the Red Sea, none of this concerns the United States. Rather, Aspides attempts to demonstrate that Europe could rely on the EU as a security actor. The strong push behind an EU-led, European-only defense, particularly regarding defense spending and the primary US request since the first Trump administration, is not the result of a sudden storm. Instead, renewed US aggressiveness has further nudged the Europeans towards strategic autonomy. Indeed, Europeans have been most vocal and proactive regarding their security, not within NATO, but in the EU. The EU will never fight for US interests or in the US way. This is not what the EU was created for. On the contrary, this was why NATO was established, making it an organization suited to defend US and European interests in the American way.

This also highlights the second major problem in the US debate. Because the United States ignores the EU as a security actor, it fails to recognize that the EU and NATO rely on two opposite perspectives. Misunderstanding the difference between the EU’s inward-focused posture and the US’s forward-leaning one undermines US attempts to reset transatlantic relations. While US commentators correctly ask Europeans to contribute more, they overlook their counterparts’ perspective. From the US point of view, fighting the Houthis means not only preventing attacks on the seas but also bombing their positions on land. For Europeans, this is excessive, rendering US complaints about their conduct dangerously pointless.

In no other domain has this mistaken approach had more consequences than in the naval domain. The US viewpoint is forward-leaning – hence, offensive – towards protecting SLOCs, involving heavy military force. On the other hand, the European perspective is reactive, building convoy-like defenses around commercial ships. In short, Americans prefer to charge ahead, whereas Europeans tend to build trenches. The Red Sea Crisis exemplifies this dynamic.

The Euro-American split has resulted in two overlapping operations acting from different perspectives without a common end goal. While the EU-led Operation Aspides focuses solely on protecting commerce, US-led efforts have multilayered strategic goals: protecting SLOCs, demonstrating maritime strength on the global seas, and eroding Iran’s influence in the Middle East by striking its proxies. From the US viewpoint, these goals are not isolated but interconnected ends on a dynamic maritime chessboard, where the ultimate objective is to checkmate China. From the European perspective, China is not even on the board.

Indeed, contrary to popular US belief, the Red Sea Crisis is not about European trade; rather, it is about US sea power. The United States is not fighting the Houthis to bail out freeloading Europeans. This view is contrary to US interests and damaging to US strategy. The United States is taking charge of a maritime crisis because it can still be the premier global maritime power. This demonstration of maritime strength sends two messages. First, the United States still dominates the seas. Second, the United States is not a dead sea power to China. Underestimating the value of these messages in the context of strategic competition with China is a fatal mistake for the US.

To be fair, concerns about straining US naval forces are valid and must be addressed. However, once again, these concerns must be addressed in accordance with US naval strategy, not against it. Indeed, an increased European commitment should not continue on the premise of split naval strength. This is an open subversion of all the basic principles of US naval strategy: overwhelming naval power, control of the sea lines of communications, and maritime dominance. If the United States concedes any of these to either friend or foe, the sea power that has supported US freedom and prosperity will crumble.

The United States must leverage NATO to align transatlantic allies. This will require two key steps. First, the United States must tone down its anger towards its transatlantic allies. Autonomy-seeking Europeans might be more incentivized to maintain their defensive posture if they view the United States as an adversary. So far, this trend has been evident, and there is no reason for the United States to make Europeans even less inclined to contribute to transatlantic efforts.

The second step could involve a more structured division of labor in the Red Sea. Throughout history, very few maritime crises involving land-based attacks on commercial shipping have ended without a major deployment of strength. While the United States has a strong interest in striking the Houthis to keep Iran in check, the Europeans have an interest in keeping SLOCs open. The current approach – the United States striking the Houthis from the sea while the Europeans continue their convoy-like missions – is a good starting point. However, the split command and lack of matching European resources must cease. To make this work, the Europeans should reduce their commitments in the Indo-Pacific until the Red Sea Crisis is resolved. This would allow the United States to allocate resources effectively between the two connected theaters. Likewise, the United States should clarify that a unified command is crucial to bring this crisis to a halt.

A better understanding of expectations and goals in the Red Sea could generate premises to mend transatlantic fences. Presently, no one has the perfect recipe to bring this crisis to a halt, and a split approach has likely extended the crisis. Not only have the Houthis taken the lead in messaging victory, but the first true victim of this crisis – the Israeli port of Eilat – has fallen under financial pressure. Time has run out for the United States to complain about Europe without a plan. Likewise, time has proven that the European Union is still not a reliable security actor. An integrated NATO strategy that accounts for both US and European perspectives is the only choice for victory. The alternative option spells defeat.

Anna Matilde Bassoli holds a M.A. in Security Studies from Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program and a MLitt in Strategic Studies from the University of St Andrews. She also earned a B.A. in Political Science and International Relations from Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy. She currently works in the think tank industry, focusing on tech policy and security.

Featured Image: The UK Royal Navy (RN) Type 23 frigate HMS Richmond (foreground) and Type 45 destroyer HMS Diamond hand over on station as the RN vessel contributing to Operation Prosperity Guardian. (Photo by UK Ministry of Defence)

NATO Week

Strengthening Unity of Effort in the Atlantic: Lessons from Wargaming

Leave a comment

NATO Naval Power Week

By Walter Berbrick and Terence Nicholas 

Based on our experience designing and analyzing recent Naval War College wargames in the Euro-Atlantic theater, U.S. and NATO maritime forces face several challenges in maintaining readiness, enhancing lethality, and accelerating decision-making—core priorities underscored by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The North Atlantic and High North are increasingly contested, as Russian submarine operations and grey zone activities intensify and China extends its influence deeper into strategically critical Atlantic corridors.

There are several areas where greater alignment between U.S. and NATO maritime forces could enhance warfighting readiness and crisis response. These include streamlining command relationships, enhancing maritime domain awareness, harmonizing rules of engagement, strengthening maritime logistics, integrating NATO into North American defense planning, and improving amphibious force employment. While NATO navies bring significant capability to bear, optimizing these areas will ensure that the alliance is positioned to deter aggression, enhance decision advantage, and maintain maritime superiority in an increasingly complex and contested security environment.

This article offers insights and recommendations based on our wargaming experience to help U.S. and NATO naval leaders strengthen operational integration, refine force employment, and better prepare for future maritime challenges in the Euro-Atlantic theater.

Streamline Unity of Effort in the Atlantic and High North

With multiple U.S. and NATO maritime commands operating across the Atlantic and High North, there is a valuable opportunity to enhance unity of effort by refining command relationships, synchronizing force employment, and accelerating decision-making. Effective coordination among U.S. Naval Forces North (NAVNORTH), U.S. Naval Forces Europe (NAVEUR), NATO Maritime Command (MARCOM), and Striking Forces NATO (SFN) ensures that Allied maritime forces can operate seamlessly in a contested environment. Wargame insights consistently emphasize the importance of shared mission awareness, mission command, and persistent training to reinforce operational alignment and clarify multinational naval task force responsibilities.

Recent initiatives have bolstered deterrence in the Euro-Atlantic theater, such as the establishment of a second maneuver fleet under NAVEUR’s temporary control and a forward deployed expeditionary Maritime Operations Center (MOC) in Europe. These efforts have improved multi-echelon coordination and operational flexibility between U.S. and NATO maritime forces, demonstrating the benefits of closer integration. Additionally, refining command integration between SFN and MARCOM—two key NATO maritime components—presents a further opportunity to strengthen transatlantic force employment. SFN, responsible for high-end maritime strike capabilities, reports directly to SACEUR, while MARCOM serves as both NATO’s Combined Force Maritime Component Commander (CFMCC) and the Maritime Component Commander for multiple Joint Force Commands (JFCs). Ensuring secure communications, clear command authorities, and persistent joint training will enhance NATO’s ability to employ maritime forces rapidly and effectively at the task force and task group levels.

Another key step toward greater unity of effort is elevating JFC Norfolk to a 4-star command. As NATO’s only transatlantic operational command, JFC Norfolk serves a vital role in linking U.S. and NATO maritime operations, yet its current structure requires balancing U.S. and Allied priorities across multiple echelons. Elevating JFC Norfolk would enhance command focus on transatlantic operations, improve decision-making agility, and better align command relationships within NATO’s maritime architecture. Most importantly, structuring Allied maritime commands for crises and conflict—rather than peacetime—will ensure standing U.S. and NATO maritime forces and planners are ready and integrated to deter aggression and respond decisively in the Atlantic and High North.

Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness and Situational Awareness

U.S. and NATO maritime forces have a unique opportunity to sharpen their maritime domain awareness (MDA) and situational awareness by strengthening intelligence-sharing and coordination across the Atlantic and High North. Both forces field some of the world’s most advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities, but their full potential can only be realized through seamless integration of policies, technologies, and operational procedures. Enhancing coordination between key commands—NAVEUR, NAVNORTH, MARCOM, and SFN—will create a more comprehensive and real-time picture of the maritime battlespace, enabling faster threat detection, more agile decision-making, and greater operational effectiveness in contested environments.

A critical step toward this goal is developing a federated Common Operating Picture (COP) that integrates multi-domain sensor data from both U.S. and NATO maritime forces. This approach would reduce ISR fragmentation, allowing commanders to detect, track, and respond to threats with greater speed and precision. Whether countering adversary submarine movements, grey-zone activities, or long-range maritime threats, a more connected ISR network would enhance decision-making, improve force employment, and reinforce deterrence, ensuring NATO and U.S. maritime forces maintain a strategic advantage in dynamic operational theaters.

However, technology alone is not the answer. Persistent joint training, operational scenario-driven wargames, and multinational staff exchanges will be essential to refining intelligence-sharing processes and breaking down procedural barriers. Regular stress-testing of ISR coordination in realistic threat conditions will enhance interoperability, clarify authorities, and increase confidence across the alliance. By taking these steps, U.S. and NATO maritime forces will build a more unified, resilient, and responsive transatlantic naval force—one that can anticipate, deter, and decisively respond to emerging threats in an increasingly contested maritime security environment.

Maximizing Authorities and Rules of Engagement 

In fast-moving maritime operations, commanders need the ability to act swiftly and in sync with their allies. U.S. and NATO forces operate under different Rules of Engagement (ROE) and authorities, but instead of seeing this as a constraint, there’s an opportunity to leverage these differences to enhance operational agility. A deeper understanding of how each nation’s approval processes work—who can authorize what and when—can reduce delays, increase interoperability, and open the door to more flexible force employment. When commanders operate with shared awareness of authorities, they are better equipped to act decisively and prevent adversaries from exploiting procedural gaps.

Expanding this understanding is a practical step toward greater coordination and combat effectiveness. If commanders know when and how NATO and U.S. assets can operate under each other’s authorities, they can more effectively integrate forces in real time. For example, U.S. and NATO surface and submarine forces could be tasked interchangeably in a crisis, making force posture more dynamic and responsive. Instead of working around bureaucratic seams, commanders could focus on maximizing the collective strength of the alliance to deter and respond to threats with greater speed and cohesion.

To further streamline decision-making, establishing pre-approved Crisis Response Options and real-time coordination cells would allow forces to act immediately when needed. Setting clear engagement triggers across all warfare domains—surface, subsurface, air, cyber, and electronic warfare—would synchronize responses across NATO and U.S. maritime forces, closing decision-making gaps that adversaries might otherwise exploit. Aligning ROE where possible, increasing transparency of authorities, and enabling faster approvals will ensure that U.S. and NATO maritime forces can operate as a unified force, projecting deterrence and strength in an increasingly complex security environment.

Enhancing Operational Resilience

Sustaining maritime operations in the Atlantic and High North is not just about moving fuel, munitions, and supplies—it’s about ensuring forces can stay in the fight when and where they’re needed most. The ability to rapidly resupply ships at sea, repair battle damage, and sustain operations away from fixed infrastructure is what separates an agile, combat-ready force from one that risks being sidelined when it matters most. Wargaming has provided a valuable way to stress-test sustainment strategies, identify weak points before they become real-world problems, and explore new ways to keep fleets operational in contested environments.

A major takeaway from these efforts is the importance of stronger coordination between key sustainment commands like NAVNORTH, NAVEUR, MARCOM, and SFN. In fast-moving operations, small misalignments in logistics planning can lead to big problems. Establishing dedicated logistics coordination cells and integrating sustainment planning more deeply into operational decision-making can help ensure the right resources are available at the right time. The more aligned NATO and U.S. sustainment efforts become, the better prepared forces will be to sustain prolonged operations across the Atlantic.

Another critical piece is expeditionary logistics—the ability to keep ships on station without having to pull back to port for resupply and repairs. While the U.S. has made significant advances in vertical replenishment (VERTREP) and at-sea rearming, many NATO warships still rely on fixed facilities, which limits flexibility. Expanding interoperability in afloat logistics, forward-deploying repair capabilities, and developing mobile resupply facilities will keep ships in the fight longer. Additionally, prepositioning sustainment stockpiles across North America and Europe will help reduce dependence on major ports and ensure forces remain operational regardless of access challenges. Logistics isn’t just a support function—it’s a warfighting necessity. The ability to sustain combat operations anytime, anywhere will be a decisive factor in maintaining maritime superiority in the Atlantic.

Expanding U.S.-NATO Naval Integration for North American Defense

As security dynamics in the Atlantic and High North continue to evolve, there is a growing opportunity to strengthen U.S.-NATO naval integration and expand cooperation in North American defense. Traditionally, NATO’s maritime forces have focused on collective defense under Article 5, while homeland defense responsibilities have remained largely within national command structures. However, as adversaries increase activity across the Atlantic, greater alignment between U.S. and NATO maritime forces can enhance deterrence, improve crisis response, and provide more flexible force employment options.

One way to achieve this is by better integrating NATO maritime forces into existing U.S. defense planning and operations. Coordination among NAVNORTH, MARCOM, and SFN has often been episodic rather than institutionalized, making it more reactive than proactive. By establishing routine collaboration, expanding NATO’s operational footprint in the Western Atlantic and Arctic, and refining joint maritime situational awareness, NATO and U.S. commanders alike can improve force synchronization and enhance maritime domain awareness. This approach would allow for faster response times, increased interoperability, and a stronger deterrent posture in the event of a crisis.

There are several practical steps that could further this integration. Embedding NATO liaison officers within NAVNORTH and NORTHCOM would improve real-time coordination, intelligence sharing, and joint maritime-air defense planning. Additionally, posturing NATO naval and air assets for homeland defense missions in the North Atlantic and Arctic would provide an immediate and credible deterrent while ensuring NATO forces are better aligned with U.S. homeland defense efforts. Expanding NATO’s ISR capabilities—such as maritime patrol aircraft, submarines, and early warning systems—into NAVNORTH’s defense networks would significantly strengthen Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD), reducing strategic surprise and improving early threat detection.

Looking ahead, the current rotation of Standing NATO Maritime Groups (SNMGs) between JFC Brunssum and JFC Naples means that JFC Norfolk lacks dedicated forces assigned during competition, limiting its ability to establish a continuous deterrent presence and provide a rapid response in the Atlantic and High North. Given the operational demands in both European and transatlantic theaters, relying solely on the existing SNMG rotation is insufficient to maintain persistent maritime presence and readiness. To address this, SACEUR should consider establishing an additional SNMG and a dedicated Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft (MPRA) detachment under JFC Norfolk. This would ensure a standing force capable of sustained ASW, surface warfare, and air defense operations in the Western Atlantic and Arctic, reinforcing NATO’s ability to deter aggression and respond swiftly to emerging threats.

Strengthening U.S.-NATO Amphibious Integration

As maritime security threats evolve, U.S. and NATO amphibious forces have a unique opportunity to enhance integration, ensuring they are prepared for rapid employment in contested littorals. NATO fields highly capable amphibious units—including the U.S. Marine Corps, UK Royal Marines, Dutch Korps Mariners, and French, Italian, and Spanish Marine forces—yet their combined employment under NATO command remains a work in progress. Without a standardized framework for command relationships, questions around operational and tactical control can arise, creating opportunities to refine how these forces are assigned, tasked, and employed in competition, crisis, and conflict.

With near-peer competitors and regional actors expanding anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, the ability to project power and secure key maritime terrain is becoming more critical. Wargame insights have highlighted how U.S. and NATO amphibious forces could serve as a key element of deterrence, enabling fleet maneuver while limiting adversary freedom of action. At the same time, the current NATO command structure—where Striking Forces NATO (SFN) oversees high-end strike capabilities and MARCOM serves as the Combined Force Maritime Component Commander (CFMCC)—presents an opportunity to clarify how amphibious forces integrate into larger NATO maritime operations. Further alignment with Joint Force Commanders in Norfolk, Naples, and Brunssum will ensure these forces are positioned for effective and decisive employment.

To strengthen interoperability and readiness, aligning amphibious operations within a cohesive U.S.-NATO framework will be essential. This includes refining mission requirements across the continuum of competition, crisis, and conflict, as well as integrating these forces into routine joint planning, training, and execution cycles. Regular multinational exercises, wargames, and professional military education programs will reinforce interoperability, build familiarity between U.S. and NATO amphibious units, and enhance their ability to respond rapidly when called upon. By institutionalizing these efforts, NATO’s amphibious forces will be better prepared to operate as a unified, combat-ready force capable of deterring aggression and securing key maritime terrain in crises and conflict.

Way Ahead

Wargaming has long been a powerful tool for refining strategy, testing assumptions, and strengthening operational effectiveness. Over the past several years, we’ve seen firsthand how it can shape real-world planning and decision-making. By stress-testing command structures, exploring new approaches to force employment, and fostering greater integration between U.S. and NATO maritime forces, wargames have directly informed adjustments that enhance unity of effort across the Atlantic. These insights have helped refine coordination among key commands, sharpen deterrence, and improve readiness to respond to emerging threats in an increasingly complex security environment.

Looking ahead, there is an opportunity to build on this momentum by further aligning command structures, intelligence-sharing, sustainment networks, and amphibious operations. As the maritime domain becomes more contested, ensuring seamless coordination between U.S. and NATO forces will be essential for maintaining freedom of movement, deterring aggression, and preparing for high-end conflict. Strengthening transatlantic maritime integration will not only enhance crisis response but also enable a more agile and lethal force, ready to operate across the spectrum of competition and conflict.

To sustain maritime superiority, the focus must remain on proactive planning, persistent training, and continued investment in warfighting capabilities. As adversaries seek to exploit operational seams, U.S. and NATO forces must stay ahead by reinforcing their deterrent posture and refining how they fight together. Through deliberate efforts to streamline command relationships, improve operational integration, and expand warfighting capabilities, the alliance will ensure it is ready—not just to compete, but to prevail in any future conflict.

Dr. Walter Berbrick is a senior military analyst with Netsimco, a Saalex Company, and the Lead Analyst of Euro-Atlantic Wargame Series for Commander, Naval Forces Europe & Africa. He served 15 years on the Naval War College’s faculty, leading the research design and analysis for the Trans-Atlantic Maritime Command and Control (TAMC2) wargame series from 2019 to 2024.

Dr. Terence Nicholas is an Assistant Professor in the Wargaming Department of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the U.S. Naval War College. He currently serves as the Lead Designer of Euro-Atlantic Wargame Series for Commander, Naval Forces Europe & Africa.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official positions of the U.S. Naval War College, the Department of the Navy, or any other U.S. government organization. Wargames, including the TAMC2 series described here, are not predictive and do not forecast future events; they serve as independent analytical research events intended to provide insights and inform decision-making.

Featured Image: HMS Prince of Wales and the embarked Air Wing leads NATO maritime forces as part of Joint Warrior 24-1, part of NATO’s Steadfast Defender exercise series. (Photo by UK Ministry of Defence)

NATO Week

Keeping America Engaged: Three Possibilities for European Navies

1 Comment

NATO Naval Power Week

By Michael D. Purzycki

Introduction

For the next several years, European security is likely to appear less prominent within United States foreign policy. Even if the U.S. remains militarily present in Europe and the North Atlantic, it may demand some form of financial compensation for doing so, as evidenced by the potential U.S.-Ukraine natural resources deal. Although the increase in defense spending by many NATO members since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is a positive development for European security writ large, it will likely be years before European navies are ready to face Russian aggression independently, should the U.S. withdraw its support.

To keep the U.S. engaged in the waters around Europe, European NATO members must find areas of common interest with the U.S. The threat of China to both European and American security interests creates many such opportunities. By monitoring China’s activities in the Arctic, becoming more active in the Indo-Pacific, and buying American, Europeans can maintain a strong military and industrial link to the U.S. even if U.S. military presence in and around Europe shrinks in the near future.

Guarding the Arctic

The Arctic has become an arena for great power competition between the U.S., Russia, and China. China recently declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” and is establishing mining and drilling operations in the region. By collaborating with Russia, China has expanded its economic and military presence in the far north. China launched its first domestically built polar icebreaker in 2019 and its container ships have transited the Arctic Ocean more than 100 times since 2013. In late 2024, the U.S. Coast Guard spotted a joint Chinese-Russian naval patrol within 12 nautical miles of the Alaskan coastline. By drawing attention to China’s presence in the Arctic, either by China itself or China in partnership with Russia, Europe can increase the chances of America looking north.

Throughout the Cold War, the High North was an area of concern for NATO. For decades, surveilling Soviet submarines navigating the GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) was a critical task for NATO forces. American-built naval systems are already present in NATO forces with a major stake in the Arctic. Both Britain’s Royal Air Force and the Royal Norwegian Air Force use the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, while Germany is beginning to acquire P-8s of its own. As the U.S. begins to operationalize its response to China’s growing Arctic presence, it can look to NATO’s latent, modernized maritime patrol capability to bolster its efforts, one that is perfectly suited to sustain a watchful eye over the High North.

Contributing to Indo-Pacific Security

There are economic and political reasons for Europe to reduce its dependence on China, even if it does not result in a “decoupling” to the extent some have advocated for the U.S. to achieve. Europe has lost numerous manufacturing jobs to China, akin to the “China shock” discussed in America. The Center for European Reform has warned of a second China shock in the near future.

However, the damage done by further manufacturing outsourcing would pale in comparison to that done by outright war. In 2023, then-U.K. Foreign Secretary James Cleverly warned that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would effectively destroy world trade, harming European as well as Pacific Rim nations:

“About half of the world’s container ships pass through these vital waters [the Taiwan Strait] every year, laden with goods bound for Europe and the far corners of the world. Taiwan is a thriving democracy and a crucial link in global supply chains, particularly for advanced semi-conductors.”

In December 2024, Luke Patey, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, warned European policymakers that “the European Union needs a China contingency,” to prepare for the effects of a Chinese-Taiwan conflict on the availability of such vital products as semiconductors, solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that European vessels may find themselves fighting alongside Taiwanese and American ships against the People’s Liberation Army Navy. If Washington prioritizes competition with China for the next several years, European countries willing to share the burden would likely see the U.S. reciprocating in European security affairs. 

How to accomplish this? The playbook is already well established. Several European navies have operated in the Indo-Pacific in recent years. In 2021, the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth carried American and British F-35s through the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and Western Pacific. After striking ISIS targets in the Levant, the bilateral task force participated in Maritime Partnership Exercise 2021 with Australian and Japanese forces.

Meanwhile, France, the only country besides the U.S. with a nuclear-powered carrier, recently deployed its flagship Charles de Gaulle to the Pacific for the first time, taking part in the exercise Pacific Steller alongside Japan and the U.S. Italy, though maybe not known as a country with Indo-Pacific interests, deployed its carrier Cavour to the region last year in a trip that included a visit to Japan. Germany too deployed frigates to the Pacific in 2024, asserting the importance of freedom of navigation to China’s disapproval. NATO partners should consider more of the same, by embedding in U.S.-led task forces and operations in the Indo-Pacific to further advance U.S.-European partnerships.

Buying American

Buying U.S. defense products allows Europe to keep the U.S. close. At a time when Europe’s most important ally seems to have grown fickle in its friendship, Europeans may find they have an interest in placing political considerations before strictly military ones.

Take the Constellation class frigate (FFG-62) for example. Norway is considering this design for the replacement for its current frigates, along with British, French, and German bids. If those four European countries desired to ensure an American role in building up NATO’s ability to defend the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and Arctic Ocean, it may be in their interest to collectively ensure Norway chooses the Constellation class.

To be sure, FFG-62 has issues that might make it a suboptimal pick from a strictly military perspective. The fact that Fincantieri Marinette Marine has announced that the delivery of USS Constellation to the U.S. Navy will be delayed, from 2026 to 2029, must give the Royal Norwegian Navy pause about selecting it. Nevertheless, keeping America involved in North Atlantic maritime security may be worth the downside of Norway not procuring its first choice.

Greece is another nation considering the Constellation class. Since Athens has declined the chance to purchase soon-to-be-decommissioned littoral combat ships from the U.S., the Hellenic Navy choosing FFG-62 despite technological qualms can do significant good for transatlantic relations. Former U.S. Coast Guard cutters are another item European fleets may look at. The U.S. has already sent such vessels as Excess Defense Articles to European nations including Georgia and Greece. Would it be worth European navies purchasing cutters instead, if the incoming money kept Washington’s eyes on the Mediterranean and Black Seas?

A large number of NATO members buying American-designed ships will likely be of particular worry to one influential member of the alliance: France. Arms exports are an economic and defense priority for the French government – all parties involved remember the row caused in 2021 when Australia cancelled its planned purchase of French diesel-electric submarines to build nuclear-powered boats with America and Britain through AUKUS.

How can America and France both sell arms to their own benefit in a way that also ensures a continued American role in NATO at sea? Perhaps with a de facto cartel. Paris and Washington can decide among themselves who will sell systems to a given third country, rather than the two continuing to fiercely compete. The defense industries in both countries will benefit, as will transatlantic security. If World War II-era America was the Arsenal of Democracy, this Franco-American partnership can become a Cartel for Democracy.

Conclusion

European maritime security is in a state it has not been in since the Second World War. The extent to which the U.S. will contribute to peace and stability in the North Atlantic is in flux. To increase the chances of the U.S. continuing to be active in the region, European countries must endeavor to marry their maritime security to the greatest extent possible to that of the U.S. In the Arctic, the Indo-Pacific, and in defense industrial policy, Europe has chances to keep America engaged. It must take advantage of these opportunities.

Michael D. Purzycki is an analyst, writer, and editor based in Arlington, Virginia. He has worked for the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Army.

The views expressed here are presented in a personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any government organization.

Featured Image: NATO forces in exercise Trident Juncture 21. (NATO photo by WO FRAN C.Valverde)