On October 15, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (often referred to colloquially as “Secretary of War” in some media and social commentary) arrived in Brussels for a meeting of NATO defense ministers focused on security issues, including support for Ukraine amid ongoing Russian incursions into NATO airspace. Speaking to reporters upon arrival, Hegseth announced that Ukraine would receive significant additional military “firepower” through NATO allies, emphasizing a “peace through strength” approach aligned with President Trump’s foreign policy. He stated: “Firepower, that’s what is coming and we expect it is coming from NATO.” This builds on comments from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who highlighted the alliance’s role in turning pledges into tangible capabilities for Kyiv. What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
EA-100, Chief of Eurasia:
Here is my assessment of what lies behind Hegseth’s rhetoric, the constraints he faces, and the likely strategic dynamics that will unfold in NATO’s approach to bolstering Ukraine’s defenses.
What Hegseth is trying to accomplish
- Shifting the burden to European allies
Hegseth’s framing — “firepower … coming from NATO” — signals a clear policy pivot: rather than the U.S. shouldering the lion’s share of Ukraine aid, he is pushing NATO members (especially European ones) to step up procurement and funding for U.S. arms. Reuters+2AP News+2
This aligns with a broader posture already voiced by Hegseth earlier: the U.S. wants to refocus on its national priorities (e.g. the Indo-Pacific) and expects Europe to take stronger responsibility for defending the continent and supporting Ukraine. The Guardian+2Wikipedia+2 - Legitimizing the “peace through strength” narrative under Trump
By emphasizing firepower, deterrence, and credible capabilities, Hegseth is importing a longstanding American strategic trope. In doing so, he is anchoring NATO’s Ukraine support in a conventional deterrence logic that meshes with Trump’s rhetoric (though with some risks, as I’ll note below). - Salvaging NATO unity ahead of the ministers’ meeting
The timing is important. NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels is a moment where Hegseth can exert influence, rally lagging states, and condition the narrative: that promises must now result in capability deliveries, not just pledges. Rutte, for his part, is talking up turning pledges into “tangible capabilities” for Kyiv. Reuters+3NATO+3Anadolu Ajansı+3 - Signaling U.S. resolve (or at least U.S. expectations) in the face of Russian provocations
Given Russia’s increasingly blatant testing of NATO airspace (e.g. drones, fighter aircraft), Hegseth’s arrival with strong language sends a message: NATO must not just warn, but respond credibly when violations occur. Rutte, for instance, has underscored that air defenses and interceptors will be central in the alliance’s next steps. Reuters+2Anadolu Ajansı+2
The constraints and contradictory pressures
Despite the rhetorical boldness, Hegseth’s push faces significant structural and political constraints:
- Budgetary fatigue and competing priorities in Europe
Many NATO members are under pressure to balance defense spending with social spending, debt obligations, and electoral constraints. Some are already struggling to meet existing defense commitments (e.g., the 5 % target agreed in The Hague summit). Anadolu Ajansı+3Wikipedia+3Financial Times+3
Not all will be eager or able to accelerate U.S. weapons purchases even if the request is framed as urgent. - Procurement and industrial bottlenecks
You cannot conjure firepower overnight. Even if allies commit funding, the lead times for complex systems (air defenses, munitions, interceptors) and the production capacity constraints in U.S. and European defense industries will limit how fast new supplies can flow. Rutte has already emphasized the need to “ramp up defense industrial production.” Anadolu Ajansı - Donor fatigue and inconsistencies of pledges
Data suggest military support to Ukraine declined over the summer months (July–August), even given the PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) mechanism. Reuters+2Newsweek+2
Many pledges in previous years never fully materialized, or deliveries were delayed. The memorandum-of-intent stage is easier than ensuring logistics, sustainment, training, and compatibility. - Risk of escalation with Russia and political blowback
If NATO visibly arms Ukraine with heavier capabilities (e.g. long-range missiles, advanced air defense), Moscow may respond with escalation — including strikes near NATO’s periphery, cyberattacks, supply chain targeting, or drone/warning provocations. Some allies will resist crossing certain red lines, particularly those bordering Russia or Belarus. - Divergent strategic postures within NATO
Some NATO states (especially in Western Europe) remain cautious about escalation, while Eastern flank states are more inclined toward maximal support for Kyiv. Reconciliation of these differences will be delicate. - U.S. policy ambiguity and domestic politics
While Hegseth is pushing hard, the ultimate authority is the White House, and Trump’s Ukraine policy could be more transactional or selective. There is uncertainty whether the U.S. will approve more aggressive systems (e.g. long-range strike weapons) or place restrictive conditions. Some in Congress may balk at large new funding.
Likely near-term outcomes and trajectories
Given the above dynamics, here’s how I assess the most probable path forward over the next 3–9 months:
- Modest incremental pledges, not a surge
Some NATO members (especially newer ones or those already increasing defense spending) — like Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Baltic states — will pledge additional funds or commit to PURL-style purchases. Indeed, reports already note that Sweden, Estonia, Finland made announcements. The Guardian+2Reuters+2
But the overall increase will likely fall short of transformational levels in the immediate term. - More “middle-tier” capabilities and air/missile defense emphasis
Because such systems are politically less controversial than, say, long-range strike, NATO will likely bulk up interceptors, radars, drones, counter-drone systems, and integrated air defense among allies. Rutte has already highlighted air defense in his remarks. Anadolu Ajansı+2Reuters+2 - Gradual acceleration of production and joint procurement efforts
NATO will push to lessen trade and procurement barriers among allies, foster shared defense industrial projects, and coordinate joint orders to achieve economies of scale. The alliance may try to lock in multi-year contracts so that ramp-up becomes predictable. Financial Times+2Anadolu Ajansı+2 - Conditional escalation on the Ukraine side
Kyiv will press for more advanced weapons (e.g. longer-range missiles, precision strike) as necessary to shift the battlefield. Whether NATO will deliver those — and whether the U.S. agrees to them — is the major flashpoint to watch. The dynamic will be driven as much by battlefield needs as by alliance political will. - Ongoing tension over burden-sharing and credibility tests
Hegseth’s rhetoric is a test: will European allies match words with capabilities? If not, the strain within NATO could grow, particularly if Russia pushes further into NATO’s airspace or tests alliance resolve.
Strategic implications & red flags
- The transition from pledges to capabilities is a strategic inflection point. If NATO fails to deliver materially, deterrence credibility erodes not just for Ukraine but for alliance security more broadly.
- Hegseth’s arrival and tough tone may provoke a counter-narrative from Russia (claiming NATO is escalating, targeting Russia, provoking conflict). Moscow may intensify its own hybrid operations or deepen airspace violations to test response thresholds.
- NATO internal cohesion is under strain. Disagreements on escalation risk, burden share, or strategic ambition could widen fault lines — particularly between Eastern and Western members.
- The U.S. push to shift the burden to Europe is deliberate; if Europe does not deliver, the U.S. may reduce its visible role in Ukraine (or reorient forces elsewhere), leaving Kyiv in a more precarious position.
Bottom line
Hegseth’s Brussels announcement is a calculated gambit: to recast NATO’s Ukraine support as a European responsibility, to force the transition from pledges to action, and to frame “peace through strength” as the alliance’s core logic going forward. But the success of that gambit hinges on the ability of NATO states to translate intent into capabilities under real constraints — financial, industrial, political, and strategic. For Ukraine, the real measure will not be how loudly allies promise firepower, but how quickly and reliably they deliver it.
If you like, I can map out scenario paths (optimistic, baseline, pessimistic) for NATO–Ukraine military support over 2026–2027, so you can see which dynamics are most fragile. Would you prefer that?
EA-100, Chief of Eurasia
Three Corporate