By General (Rtd) Corneliu Pivariu

I personally experienced, during my full professional activity, the post–Cold War period in which NATO adapted to new conditions and in which numerous theories circulated claiming that the North Atlantic Alliance had become obsolete and was on the path to disappearance. Then, as now—although today’s geopolitical conditions are far more complex—I expressed the view that the Organization possesses the capacity and resources to adapt to concrete realities and to maintain its relevance.

The advance signals of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) sent a clear strategic message from Washington: the NATO operating model of the past three decades is considered exhausted. What we are witnessing is not an American withdrawal from Europe, but a redefinition of roles within the Alliance, in a multipolar context marked by simultaneous strategic constraints.

The message was conveyed explicitly by Elbridge Colby[2], one of the principal architects of contemporary strategic thinking in Washington, who represented the United States at the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting held on 12 February 2026, in advance of the MSC.

His intervention can be read as a doctrinal proclamation rather than a situational or conjunctural statement.

1. From NATO 1.0 to NATO 3.0: an Explicit Strategic Periodization

Colby proposes—implicitly and explicitly—a three-phase periodization of the North Atlantic Alliance:

NATO 1.0 – the Cold War period

Characterized by hard strategic realism, credible deterrence, a clear distribution of responsibilities, and the explicit expectation that European allies contribute substantially to their own defense. This was the NATO of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.

NATO 2.0 – the unipolar American moment and the post–Cold War era

A phase defined by enlargement, “out-of-area” operations, relative European disarmament, and an increasingly structural dependence on American military capabilities. European territorial defense was largely externalized.

NATO 3.0 – a return to realism in a multipolar context

The proposed new architecture assumes a Europe that becomes the primary conventional defender of the continent, supported by the United States’ strategic, nuclear, and global power-projection capabilities. Conceptually, NATO 3.0 is closer to NATO 1.0 than to the model of the past three decades.

This distinction is essential: it is not a revolution, but a historical correction.

“Partnerships, Not Dependencies” – the Key Phrase of the New Doctrine

One of the core ideas of Colby’s discourse is the formulation: “We want partnerships, not dependencies.”

This marks a turning point in the transatlantic relationship:

The United States no longer accepts the role of permanent substitute for European conventional capabilities;

Europe is called upon to assume primary responsibility for its own security;

The American guarantee remains, but it is redefined as strategic support, not as a structural crutch.

The message is not anti-European. On the contrary, it is a call for the maturation of the Alliance and for moving beyond the logic of comfortable dependency.

2. The Implicit Response to the MSC Report: America Is Not Dismantling the Order, but Recalibrating It

Colby’s speech must also be read as an indirect response to the Munich Security Conference report, which portrays the United States as the “elephant in the room” of the........

© Eurasia Review