Bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreements (DCAs) with the US and European Strategic Autonomy with additional comments

The transatlantic security relationship stands at a critical juncture as Europe prepares for potential shifts in American security commitments under a the second Trump administration. There clearly is a need to consider how European nations are accelerating their pursuit of strategic autonomy while the United States appears poised to adopt a more transactional approach to its traditional security guarantees. At the core of this evolving relationship are Defense Cooperation Agreements (DCAs), which simultaneously represent both a framework for continued American influence and support to European partners and potential instruments for reducing long-term commitments. Europe’s progress toward self-sufficiency in defense capabilities and spending has advanced significantly, with over twenty nations now meeting NATO’s 2% GDP defense spending target, indicating a substantial transformation in the continent’s approach to its security architecture. It should be noted that the issue of nuclear weapons is not extensively dealt with in this text. It requires a dedidcated analysis.

Historical Context of Transatlantic Security Relations

The transatlantic security relationship has historically been characterized by American leadership and European dependency, a paradigm established in the aftermath of World War II and solidified throughout the Cold War. This arrangement provided stability for Europe while allowing the United States to maintain strategic influence across the continent. For decades, the imbalance in defense spending and capabilities between the United States and its European allies created tension within NATO, with American administrations regularly criticizing European nations for not meeting agreed-upon defense spending targets, while resisting the creation of capabilities on the European level. This criticism reached a crescendo during the first Trump administration, when the American president overtly questioned the value of NATO and suggested American security guarantees might be conditional on increased European defense expenditures. The second Trump administration has already accelerated European concerns about the reliability of American security commitments and catalyzed more concrete action toward developing independent capabilities.

The traditional security relationship has been further complicated by divergent strategic priorities, with European nations increasingly focused on regional threats while American attention has shifted toward competition with China in the Indo-Pacific. This divergence has created both challenges and opportunities for redefining the transatlantic relationship. European nations have begun to recognize that regardless of which administration holds power in Washington, American strategic focus will continue to shift away from Europe, necessitating greater European self-reliance in security matters. This recognition has fundamentally transformed the nature of transatlantic dialogue from one centered on burden-sharing to one increasingly focused on responsibility-sharing and European strategic autonomy – a concept highly controversial both in the US and Europe as late as last year.

The Transition from Burden-Sharing to Strategic Autonomy

The traditional NATO burden-sharing debate has evolved significantly in recent years, moving beyond simple discussions of financial contributions to a more comprehensive conversation about European strategic responsibility. This shift represents a major transformation in how European nations conceptualize their role in providing for their own security. The concrete manifestation of this shift can be observed in defense spending.

This increased European investment reflects not merely compliance with NATO requirements but a deeper recognition that European security interests require independent capabilities. European nations have begun investing more strategically, focusing on capabilities that enhance their independent operational capacity rather than simply complementing American forces. New and expanded programs aim to enhance defense industrial cooperation among European nations, reduce dependency on American military equipment, and develop European solutions to European security challenges.

Perhaps most significantly, the conversation about strategic autonomy has extended into areas previously considered exclusively within the American domain, particularly regarding nuclear deterrence. France has begun exploring expanded roles for its nuclear arsenal within European security frameworks, contemplating how its  nuclear arsenal  might provide broader deterrence coverage for European allies. This development would have been considered unthinkable a decade ago and signals a dramatic evolution in European strategic thinking.

Defense Cooperation Agreements: Architecture and Strategic Implications

Defense Cooperation Agreements (DCAs) form the legal architecture underpinning American military presence and cooperation across Europe. The United States has established such agreements with sixteen European countries, including recent additions like Sweden. These bilateral agreements grant the United States access to military facilities for joint training exercises and the prepositioning of equipment, creating a network of potential operational hubs across the continent. The structural elements of these agreements reveal much about their strategic purpose and potential longevity. Typically structured with ten-year terms, as exemplified by Sweden’s recent DCA, these agreements create a framework of semi-permanence that transcends individual political administrations.

The termination provisions of these agreements typically require a twelve-month notice period after the initial decade, creating significant institutional inertia against rapid policy changes. This structural characteristic means that even if political sentiment shifts toward reducing American commitments, the legal framework for continued cooperation remains in place.

The geographic scope of these agreements is particularly significant in strategic terms, covering Nordic airbases, ports, and storage sites that would be critical in any potential conflict scenario in Northern Europe (see map). This network of facilities creates an integrated infrastructure that standardizes logistics and operational procedures across different European theaters.

While ostensibly technical in nature, these agreements have profound political implications. They create legal commitments that bind future administrations to certain forms of cooperation, potentially limiting policy flexibility. For a future American administration considering a more transactional approach to European security, these agreements present both constraints and opportunities. They could serve as vehicles for maintaining American influence while gradually reducing direct security commitments, allowing the United States to leverage access rights as part of broader strategic negotiations.

The Paradox of Reduced Commitments and Sustained Influence

A central paradox emerges when examining how DCAs might function under a more transactional American approach to European security. While such agreements could theoretically serve as instruments for reducing permanent American military commitments in Europe, they simultaneously provide mechanisms for sustained American influence. The access rights granted under DCAs give the United States significant leverage in European security discussions, even if the actual number of permanently stationed American troops decreases. This creates a situation where American influence might remain substantial even as direct security provision decreases. The presence of American personnel along sensitive routes of reinforcement is a case in point.

This paradoxical arrangement might actually align with certain European strategic objectives. European nations pursuing greater autonomy still recognize the value of American security guarantees and technological capabilities. DCAs provide a framework for continued cooperation that supports European security while creating space for greater European responsibility. The standardization of procedures and logistics facilitated by these agreements supports interoperability between American and European forces, which remains essential even as European capabilities develop independently. They also serve as the basis for intra-European military cooperation

The decade-scale duration of these agreements creates a temporal buffer against radical policy shifts. Even if a second Trump administration were to pursue significant reductions in American security commitments to Europe, the legal framework established by DCAs would ensure continued cooperation in key areas. This could provide European nations with the time needed to develop more robust independent capabilities while maintaining essential security guarantees during the transition period.

Implications for Conventional Defense Planning

The evolution of transatlantic relations has direct implications for conventional defense planning across Europe. The increased defense spending by European NATO members has begun translating into enhanced capabilities, particularly in areas previously dominated by American assets. Air defense systems, precision strike capabilities, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms have seen significant European investment. These developments directly address capability gaps that would emerge if American commitments were reduced.

European defense planners are increasingly designing force structures that can operate effectively with or without substantial American support. This represents a significant shift from previous approaches that assumed American capabilities would always be available to fill critical gaps. The development of European command structures capable of planning and executing major operations independently further demonstrates this shift toward self-sufficiency. However, significant capability gaps remain, particularly in strategic airlift, certain advanced intelligence capabilities, logistics, and integrated missile defense.

The geographical focus of European defense planning has also evolved, with increased attention to the northern and eastern flanks where Russian threats are perceived as most acute. Sweden’s DCA with the United States reflects this focus, creating

framework for potential operations in the Baltic region. Similar agreements with other nations along NATO’s eastern flank create a network of potential operational hubs that would be crucial in any conflict scenario. This geographical distribution of agreements helps create a more resilient defense posture less dependent on a few major American bases and more capable of sustaining operations across multiple fronts.

Navigating a Transformed Transatlantic Relationship

The transatlantic security relationship is undergoing a fundamental transformation driven by changing American strategic priorities and European responses to perceived shifts in security guarantees. Defense Cooperation Agreements provide an important window into how this relationship might evolve, offering both continuity and flexibility as European strategic autonomy develops. The increased European defense spending and evolving approaches to nuclear deterrence further indicate that the continent is preparing for a security environment characterized by greater self-reliance while maintaining cooperative frameworks with the United States.

This evolution creates both challenges and opportunities for transatlantic security. The potential reduction in American commitments could accelerate the development of more robust European capabilities, ultimately creating a more balanced relationship. However, the transition period carries significant risks, particularly if capability gaps emerge before European alternatives are fully developed.

The future of transatlantic security will likely be characterized by a more balanced partnership with clearer divisions of responsibility. European nations will assume greater responsibility for conventional defense in their region while the United States maintains critical enabling capabilities and nuclear guarantees. Defense Cooperation Agreements will serve as the connective tissue in this relationship, as a formal basis,  providing frameworks for continued cooperation while allowing both sides greater flexibility in how they approach their security commitments. The question is, however how far the shift towards European capabilities will go, also as regards enablers and nuclear deterrennce.

The author is ambassador, holds a PhD and is a fellow of RSAWS.

The article was published by Consilio International 2025-03-10

Additional comments from Krister Andrén, fellow of the RSAWS and chair of department VI: