CSDS IN-DEPTH PAPER NO.22 JANUARY, 2026
Abstract
Russia’s sustained belligerence against Ukraine and NATO, combined with mounting expectations by the United States that European allies assume primary responsibility for the conventional defence of Europe, has triggered the largest rearmament effort among European NATO members since the late 1970s. At the same time, Washington has signalled its intent to preserve enduring strategic leaership within the Alliance, notably through extended nuclear deterrence commitments, key enabling capabilities and – at least for the time being – the continued US stewardship of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe position, which remains dual-hatted with that of Commander of the US European Command.
These parallel dynamics have revived long-standing questions about whether, how and on what timetable NATO’s command arrangements should evolve to reflect Europe’s growing ambition – and obligation – to shoulder a much greater share of the Alliance’s collective defence. How can NATO enable European allies to assume for greater operational responsibility without undermining Alliance cohesion or the unique integrative role of US strategic leadership?
This CSDS In-Depth Paper traces the evolution of NATO’s command and control architecture since the last comprehensive review of the NATO Command Structure in 2012 and assesses how future reform could reconcile these strategic imperatives. It argues that any rebalancing of command responsibilities must proceed in lockstep with the strengthening of European operational capacity on a multilnational basis. To that end, the paper proposes a phased approach to NATO command and control reform before and after 2030, encompassing: 1) deeper multinational consolidation of European forces; 2) the relocation and realignment of selected NATO headquarters; 3) the progressive transfer of operational-level joint force commands to European leadership; and 4) a longer-term hand-over of operational-level domain specific commands in the land, air and maritime domains. The result would be a more balanced and more capable Alliance – one that reflects greater European responsibility for conventional defence while preserving continued US engagement and strategic leadership.
Contents
Introduction: A Changed Strategic Landscape (4)
Chapter 1: The Expeditionary Momentum: Strategic and Operational Implications of the 2012 Command Structure Review (7)
Chapter 2: From Deployed to Prepared: NATO’s 2014 Pivot Back to Collective Defence (10)
Chapter 3: A Stronger NATO Through Rebalanced Operational Capacity and Demand (15)
Conclusion: Matching Command to Capacity (22)
SEE BELOW FOR FULL ARTICLE:
Photo Credit: Flicker