The US Europe force review reaches NATO amid a dispute over Patriot stocks
Elbridge Colby brought the US review of its European force posture to the North Atlantic Council. The briefing coincided with two anonymous officials' warning that Patriot stocks in Europe are critical after interceptors moved to the Iran war; a NATO military spokesman and the Pentagon disputed that account. Washington's review weighs procurement, burden-sharing and support for US foreign-policy priorities.
Geopolitics··Morning
The force review reaches the Council
US Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge A. Colby met the North Atlantic Council in Brussels and briefed allies on Washington's continuing review of its force posture in Europe. NATO's official statement says the meeting covered the alliance's deterrence and defence. Secretary General Mark Rutte recalled Colby's “NATO 3.0” framing, which calls for a stronger Europe and a fairer division of responsibility for security. Allies welcomed the engagement and stressed the value of continued cooperation on the review.[1]
Two officials warn of critical stocks
An unnamed US defence official and an unnamed NATO official told France 24 that stocks of Patriot interceptors in Europe had fallen to critical levels. The report says part of the US inventory was moved to the Middle East for use against Iranian drones and missiles. The US official said American forces in Europe lacked enough interceptors to stop a sustained ballistic-missile attack. The officials also said they did not expect a Russian attack in the near term, keeping the warning separate from an imminent-threat claim.[2]
Official pushback on the shortage account
NATO's senior military spokesman, Colonel Martin O'Donnell, rejected the description of Patriot numbers in Europe as beyond critical and said the alliance had enough air-defence munitions to defend itself. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also disputed claims of shortages. Separately, NATO's statement says European allies and Canada increased defence spending by 139 billion dollars in 2025. The public accounts therefore diverge sharply, leaving the force-posture review to proceed amid conflicting descriptions of current readiness.[2], [1]
