Executive Summary
The recent announcement that the United States will transfer leadership of two major NATO command posts—Allied Joint Force Command Naples and Joint Force Command Norfolk—to European officers marks a watershed moment in the transatlantic security architecture. This command restructuring, occurring alongside European commitments to dramatically increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, signals a fundamental recalibration of burden-sharing within the Alliance. For Singapore, a small city-state whose security framework has long depended on American primacy in the Indo-Pacific, these developments carry profound strategic implications that extend far beyond the European theater.
The Command Transfer: Substance and Structure
Operational Details
The transfer represents more than symbolic gestures toward European leadership. The Naples-based Allied Joint Force Command oversees NATO’s southern flank, including Mediterranean maritime operations and North African engagement—strategically critical given Russian naval activity and migration pressures. Norfolk’s Joint Force Command, meanwhile, commands Atlantic and Arctic domains where Russian submarine operations have intensified dramatically since 2022.
Concurrently, the United States will assume control of three operationally focused commands positioned slightly lower in the hierarchy: Allied Air Command (Ramstein, Germany), Allied Maritime Command (Northwood, UK), and Allied Land Command (Izmir, Turkey). This arrangement creates an intriguing division of labor—Europeans gain strategic planning authority while Americans retain tactical warfighting command.
The shift builds upon incremental changes already underway. In 2025, the U.S. Air Forces Europe-Africa command was downgraded to a three-star billet, with Lt. Gen. Jason Hinds assuming dual responsibilities for U.S. forces while maintaining NATO’s Allied Air Command leadership. The European Council on Foreign Relations has advocated for accelerating this pattern: European four-star officers should lead component commands with American three-stars serving as deputies.
The “European-Led NATO” Vision
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s articulation in October 2025 was explicit: deterring Russian aggression requires “a lethal, capable and European-led NATO.” This formulation represents a dramatic departure from 75 years of American primacy. Since General Dwight D. Eisenhower assumed the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) position in 1951, the post has remained exclusively American—most recently held by Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who took command in July 2025.
However, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker’s November 2025 remarks at the Berlin Security Conference were telling: “I look forward to the day when Germany comes to the United States and says that ‘We’re ready to take over the Supreme Allied Commander position.'” This suggests SACEUR’s eventual transfer may be years away, but it is now within the realm of serious policy discussion rather than theoretical speculation.
European leaders are pursuing a managed transition over 5-10 years, according to Financial Times reporting from March 2025. The UK, France, Germany, and Nordic countries are engaged in informal but structured discussions to eventually replace most U.S. competencies. However, significant challenges remain: European generals currently lack leadership experience at NATO’s highest echelons, creating a classic chicken-and-egg problem.
The European Defense Buildup: From Rhetoric to Reality
Historic Spending Commitments
At the June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allies committed to unprecedented defense spending targets:
– 5% of GDP annually by 2035 (core defense plus security-related spending)
– 3.5% of GDP for core NATO defense requirements
– 1.5% of GDP for defense-related infrastructure, cyber security, and industrial base strengthening
This represents more than doubling the longstanding 2% benchmark. For context, in 2014, only three NATO members met the 2% threshold. By 2025, all 32 allies are expected to meet or exceed it. European NATO members and Canada collectively invested over $482 billion in 2024 (adjusted to 2021 prices), representing 2.02% of combined GDP.
The scope of increase is extraordinary. Poland leads the charge at 4.12% of GDP in 2024, with plans to reach 4.7% in 2025. Estonia has pledged “at least 5.0% of GDP” from 2026. Lithuania targets 5-6% by 2026. Even traditionally reticent Germany has undergone constitutional reform, amending its debt brake to exclude defense spending exceeding 1% of GDP, making available up to €500 billion cumulatively through the mid-2030s.
Capability Gaps and Industrial Challenges
Despite these financial commitments, European military capabilities remain fundamentally constrained by decades of underinvestment. Had EU member states maintained just 2% of GDP defense spending from 2006-2020, it would have generated approximately €1.1 trillion in additional resources—larger than the annual U.S. defense budget.
The European Commission’s “European Defense Readiness 2030” white paper identifies critical deficiencies:
– Air and missile defense systems
– Artillery systems and ammunition stockpiles
– Drones and counter-drone capabilities
– Military mobility and logistics
– Advanced technologies (AI, quantum, cyber, electronic warfare)
– Strategic enablers and critical infrastructure protection
European defense forces remain heavily dependent on U.S. platforms across aerospace, command-and-control, precision strike, and missile defense. This asymmetry is anchored by even deeper reliance on the American nuclear umbrella. The European defense industry generated €183.4 billion turnover in 2024 with approximately 633,000 employees—substantially smaller than the U.S. defense-industrial complex.
Moreover, “defense cost inflation” often outpaces general inflation, meaning nominal spending increases yield modest real capability gains. Limited competition and lack of economies of scale contribute to market rigidities that push up production costs. Current rearmament is heavily weighted toward procurement rather than innovation, risking reinforcement of existing fragmentation rather than strategic consolidation.
Fiscal Sustainability Concerns
The economic context is sobering. Many NATO members face high debt-to-GDP ratios and questionable fiscal sustainability. France’s debt stands at 112% of GDP, with two major ratings agencies assessing its outlook as negative. Italy’s debt reached 135% of GDP in 2023, prompting IMF warnings about fiscal reform. The United States itself saw Moody’s downgrade its credit rating in May 2025 due to debt concerns.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) warns that military expenditure as a share of GDP, while politically communicable, does not capture accumulated military capabilities, equipment stocks, institutional knowledge, or whether funds are being used efficiently. The marginal returns on investment may decline rapidly, and wasteful spending could proliferate.
The Geopolitical Context: Why Now?
Russia’s Shadow
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 fundamentally altered European threat perceptions. European intelligence services warn that by 2029—NATO’s 80th anniversary year—Russia could be positioned to launch another armed attack on Europe. Moscow has intensified its gray-zone campaign, including sabotage of critical undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea.
The NATO Response Force has been dramatically enhanced, with new commands established in Germany specifically to support Ukraine. NATO’s presence in the Baltic Sea has been strengthened to deter threats against allies’ critical infrastructure. The addition of Finland (April 2023) and Sweden (March 2024) as new allies has fundamentally altered the Alliance’s strategic geography.
Trump Administration Dynamics
President Donald Trump’s consistent position on reducing America’s defense commitments in Europe creates immediate urgency. His administration reportedly considered direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine’s future without consulting European allies. Trump demanded Ukraine provide $500 billion in mineral resources as compensation for U.S. military assistance—a transactional approach that unsettles traditional alliance relationships.
The Trump administration’s tariff policies add economic pressure. In April 2025, Trump imposed a 10% universal tariff on Singapore and other trade partners. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong characterized the announcement as “a profound turning point” marking “a new phase in global affairs—one that is more arbitrary, protectionist and dangerous.”
European leaders anticipate further U.S. force reductions. Rotational deployments appear to be the first target, potentially followed by permanently deployed forces and units promised under the Biden administration (such as the long-range fires unit earmarked for Germany in 2026).
The Paradox of “European NATO Without America”
As the European Council on Foreign Relations notes, there is a fundamental paradox: NATO’s “European leadership” requires the United States to remain in the system and approve the transfer of functions. A “European NATO without America” is possible only with America’s permission. The U.S. will remain in control of NATO regardless of what is said on both sides of the Atlantic.
The greater challenge is Europe’s lack of a unified decision-making center. France pursues strategic autonomy and leadership. Germany coordinates through EU institutions to avoid appearing aggressive given 20th-century history. The European Union’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has clashed with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over institutional power. Without political unity, military integration faces severe constraints.
Singapore’s Strategic Predicament: When Distant Thunder Becomes Local Storm
The U.S.-Singapore Defense Partnership: Current State
Singapore’s security architecture is fundamentally predicated on American engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The relationship is underpinned by three milestone bilateral agreements:
1. 1990 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding U.S. use of facilities in Singapore, renewed in 2019 by President Trump and then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for another 15 years.
2. 2005 Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), which formalized the “places-not-bases” concept allowing U.S. military access to facilities on a rotational basis, avoiding sovereignty sensitivities.
3. 2015 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), further expanding operational cooperation.
These agreements grant the United States access to resupply vessels, a naval base, ship repair facilities, and an airfield. The U.S. Navy maintains Logistics Group Western Pacific command unit in Singapore, coordinating warship deployment and regional logistics. Singapore’s Changi naval base is one of few facilities globally that can accommodate U.S. aircraft carriers, enabling regular port visits.
U.S. littoral combat ships and P-8 Poseidon aircraft stationed in Singapore undertake South China Sea patrols, participate in multinational exercises, and provide disaster relief. The two countries conduct numerous bilateral exercises including Pacific Griffin (naval), Tiger Balm (army, dating to 1980), Commando Sling, Valiant Mark, and Forging Sabre.
Defense Procurement and Technology Transfer
The relationship extends to substantial military sales. As of January 2025, Singapore had $8.38 billion in active Foreign Military Sales cases. Recent approvals include:
– Four Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft ($2.3 billion package approved January 2026) to replace aging Fokker 50 fleet, with deliveries beginning 2026-2027.
– Twenty F-35 aircraft (twelve F-35B vertical takeoff/landing and eight F-35A conventional), with production commenced and delivery scheduled from end-2026. These will be based at Ebbing Air National Guard Base, Arkansas.
– MK 54 MOD 0 torpedoes and advanced air defense systems as part of integrated procurement packages.
More than 1,000 Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel participate annually in training, exercises, and professional military education in the United States at Luke Air Force Base (Arizona), Arizona National Guard Silverbell Heliport, Mountain Home Air Force Base (Idaho), and Andersen Air Force Base (Guam). Singapore has operated advanced fighter jet detachments in the continental United States for 27 years.
Admiral Samuel J. Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, visited Singapore in January 2026, meeting with Defense Minister Chan Chun Sing to “reinforce defense cooperation, improve interoperability, and reaffirm the enduring partnership.” The meeting underscored a 60-year defense relationship sustained through regular senior leader engagements, professional military education exchanges, and combined training.
The Five Power Defence Arrangements: Complementary Architecture
Singapore’s security does not rest solely on the U.S. relationship. The Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), signed in 1971, groups Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore in consultative defense cooperation. While the FPDA contains no automatic intervention obligation—it merely commits members to consult “immediately” in the event of threat or armed attack—it has evolved into credible military cooperation with substantial exercises.
The FPDA’s founding followed the UK’s 1967 decision to withdraw forces “east of Suez” by November 1971, ending defense guarantees under the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement. Though British troops departed in 1976, Australian infantry battalions withdrew in 1974, and New Zealand’s last battalion left in 1989, the arrangement persisted and evolved.
Recent FPDA enhancements include:
– Integration of fifth-generation fighters: Exercise Bersama Lima 2024 featured six Royal Australian Air Force F-35As, significantly advancing training sophistication.
– Advanced surveillance assets: Royal New Zealand Air Force P-8A patrol aircraft participation enhances maritime domain awareness.
– Upgraded training complexity: Focus on high-end conventional warfighting alongside flexibility in responding to maritime security, counter-terrorism, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and non-combatant evacuation operations.
– Emerging capabilities: Expanding into cybersecurity and unmanned aircraft systems.
The UK maintains a Defence Singapore Support Unit at Sembawang operating under Strategic Command. Australia maintains No. 19 Squadron ground support and No. 92 Wing Detachment Alpha with P-8 Poseidon aircraft at RMAF Butterworth in Malaysia.
Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen, hosting the 12th FPDA Defence Ministers’ Meeting in May 2024, emphasized the arrangement’s “unique role in Asia” as an “established multilateral security framework” that is “of strategic benefit to all member nations and, in Australia’s view, to the wider Asia-Pacific region.”
Emerging Vulnerabilities: The Singapore Perspective
Recent statements by Singaporean leaders reveal growing anxiety about American reliability. Former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong observed at a February 2025 Chinese New Year celebration: “The US is no longer prepared to underwrite the global order. This makes the international environment far less orderly and predictable.”
Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen was more blunt: “The image has changed from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent.” This characterization reflects profound unease with Trump’s transactional approach to alliances.
The implications of NATO’s Europeanization for Singapore are multifaceted:
1. Reduced U.S. Global Bandwidth
If European defense truly becomes self-sufficient, the United States could theoretically reallocate resources toward the Indo-Pacific—the “pivot to Asia” long promised but never fully realized. However, the transition period creates uncertainty. Will American attention genuinely shift eastward, or will isolationist tendencies reduce overall overseas commitments?
The U.S. military’s global posture review under Trump 2.0 remains opaque. If European rotational deployments are indeed reduced first, will corresponding increases appear in the Indo-Pacific, or will overall force structure shrink? Singapore’s access agreements assume persistent American presence—what happens if that presence becomes episodic or conditional?
2. Precedent for Burden-Sharing Demands
If Trump successfully compels Europeans to shoulder greater defense costs and command responsibilities, similar demands on Indo-Pacific allies become inevitable. Singapore already contributes to regional security disproportionate to its size, but faces no existential territorial threat comparable to Ukraine-Russia. Could Washington demand increased host-nation support, expanded access agreements, or even financial compensation for basing rights?
Japan and South Korea have faced such pressures. Singapore’s strategic value as a maritime chokepoint and logistics hub might insulate it, but equally might make it a target for extractive bargaining.
3. Questioned Alliance Credibility
The most corrosive effect is intangible: if America can countenance fundamentally restructuring its oldest, most institutionalized alliance—one forged in World War II’s crucible—what assurances exist for partnerships of more recent vintage? Singapore’s agreements with the United States lack NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. They are explicitly consultative and access-oriented, not defense pacts.
The Trump administration’s willingness to negotiate with Putin over European security without consulting allies demonstrates that institutional relationships constrain American unilateralism less than previously assumed. For Singapore, the lesson is stark: bilateral agreements with the United States are worth the paper they’re written on only insofar as they serve American interests as defined by the sitting administration.
4. Europe-Asia Resource Competition
Even if European defense spending increases dramatically, procurement will compete globally for finite defense-industrial capacity. Shipbuilding, advanced semiconductors for military systems, missile production—these bottlenecks already exist. Massive European orders could delay deliveries to Indo-Pacific allies or inflate costs.
Singapore’s P-8A acquisition and F-35 deliveries are scheduled, but future procurement may face longer lead times or higher prices if European demand surges. The global defense market is not infinitely elastic in the short-to-medium term.
5. Weakened Multilateral Norms
Singapore’s foreign policy emphasizes rules-based international order and multilateral institutions. The country actively supports ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and serves as APEC Secretariat host. Singapore portrays itself as a valuable balancer and intermediary, using ties to all major powers to promote cooperation.
Trump’s disregard for NATO’s consultative traditions and multilateral norms erodes the institutional architecture Singapore champions. If great powers increasingly act unilaterally or transactionally, small states lose leverage. The post-1945 system that enabled Singapore’s prosperity—freedom of navigation, stable trade rules, collective security—faces fundamental challenges.
6. China’s Strategic Opportunity
Beijing is carefully observing NATO’s restructuring and transatlantic tensions. Chinese analysts likely assess that American distraction in Europe and potential force reductions create windows of opportunity in the Indo-Pacific. The People’s Liberation Army Navy continues expanding—already the world’s largest navy by hull count—and increasingly capable of blue-water operations.
For Singapore, caught between wanting American presence to balance China without antagonizing Beijing (China is Singapore’s largest trading partner), this creates acute dilemmas. The Trump administration’s tariffs on Singapore and other regional partners while simultaneously demanding greater security contributions generates resentment without building trust.
7. Regional Power Vacuums and ASEAN Dynamics
If American engagement becomes unreliable, regional power dynamics shift. Does China fill vacuums? Do middle powers like Japan, Australia, and India assert greater leadership? How does this affect ASEAN centrality and cohesion?
Singapore’s prosperity depends on regional stability and ASEAN’s ability to manage great power competition without becoming a battleground. A weakened or distracted United States undermines the regional balance that has prevailed since the Cold War’s end.
Strategic Options for Singapore: Navigating Uncertainty
1. Deepen Existing Multilateral Arrangements
The FPDA offers a hedge against American unreliability. Unlike U.S. agreements, the FPDA distributes dependence across multiple partners—three of whom (UK, Australia, New Zealand) maintain strong U.S. alliances themselves but also have independent strategic interests in Asia-Pacific stability.
Singapore should advocate for FPDA expansion in scope and capability integration. The ongoing incorporation of fifth-generation fighters, advanced ISR assets, and modern warfare domains (cyber, space, electromagnetic spectrum) positions the arrangement as credible deterrence. While consultation-based rather than collective defense, persistent high-tempo exercises maintain interoperability that could enable rapid coalition formation in crisis.
The FPDA’s advantage is flexibility and defensive posture, avoiding regional sensitivities. Observers from Indonesia and other ASEAN states attend exercises, promoting transparency. Further formalization risks triggering opposition from powers wary of military blocs, but incremental capability enhancement is sustainable.
2. Strategic Diversification Beyond Traditional Partners
Singapore should continue cultivating defense relationships with Japan, India, France, and other capable middle powers. These relationships need not replace U.S. cooperation but create additional options.
Japan, with constitutional reinterpretation allowing collective self-defense and substantial defense spending increases, seeks regional partners. The Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA) could expand into deeper security cooperation, including joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and technology collaboration.
India, with growing blue-water naval ambitions and concerns about Chinese expansion, shares interests in Indian Ocean and Strait of Malacca security. Bilateral exercises and port access arrangements strengthen ties without formal alliance structures.
France maintains permanent Indo-Pacific presence through territories (New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Reunion). Paris has articulated an “Indo-Pacific strategy” emphasizing rules-based order and balancing Chinese influence. French naval vessels increasingly conduct freedom of navigation operations and participate in regional exercises.
3. Accelerate Indigenous Defense Capabilities
Singapore cannot achieve military self-sufficiency—its small population and territory impose absolute limits. However, the SAF can enhance capabilities that reduce dependence on external guarantors:
– Maritime domain awareness: Advanced surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to monitor sea lanes and territorial waters independently. The P-8A acquisition supports this, but indigenous UAVs, satellite constellations, and sensor networks add resilience.
– Air and missile defense: Layered defense systems protecting critical infrastructure and population centers from missile/drone attacks. Integration with regional partners through mechanisms like the European Sky Shield Initiative model could pool resources.
– Cyber and information warfare: Small states can achieve relative advantage in domains where size matters less than sophistication. Singapore’s Advanced Digital and Smart City initiatives provide technology foundations applicable to military domains.
– Resilience and civil defense: Enhanced stockpiling, hardened infrastructure, and civil defense preparedness increase deterrence by demonstrating ability to absorb attacks and maintain functions.
4. Economic Statecraft and Strategic Value Proposition
Singapore’s ultimate security guarantee is its strategic indispensability. Maintaining that status requires:
– Continued investment in world-class port and logistics infrastructure: Changi Naval Base, Tuas Mega Port, and Changi Airport must remain unparalleled in efficiency and capability. Great powers protect what they need.
– Financial hub status: Singapore’s role in regional finance, offshore banking, and capital markets makes disruption costly for all major economies. Economic interdependence creates interests in stability.
– Technology and innovation leadership: Positioning as regional hub for advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other critical technologies increases Singapore’s value proposition beyond geography.
– Diplomatic convening power: Maintaining reputation as neutral ground for great power dialogue (Singapore has hosted U.S.-North Korea summits, various multilateral forums) enhances indispensability.
5. Hedging Without Antagonizing
Singapore cannot choose sides in U.S.-China competition without existential risk. The country must continue sophisticated hedging:
– Military interoperability with democracies while economic integration with all powers: The SAF trains with U.S., FPDA, and Western partners. Simultaneously, Singapore participates in Chinese-led economic initiatives where beneficial and maintains high-level dialogue with Beijing.
– Support for international law and UNCLOS without directly confronting China: Singapore can advocate rules-based order in multilateral forums while avoiding bilateral confrontation over South China Sea disputes.
– Quiet capability building: Some enhancements, particularly in cyber, intelligence, and special operations, are best pursued without fanfare to avoid triggering security dilemmas with neighbors or great powers.
6. Prepare for Scenarios of American Withdrawal
Prudent planning requires contingency preparation for scenarios where U.S. security commitments prove hollow:
– What if the U.S. closes or drastically reduces presence at Changi? Singapore should ensure facilities remain world-class and attractive to other navies. The FPDA partners, Japan, and India might expand presence. Diversified users reduce dependence while maintaining deterrent effect.
– What if American weapons systems become unavailable or support degrades? Diversified procurement from multiple suppliers (European, Israeli, indigenous development) ensures no single point of failure. The F-35 is transformative, but over-reliance on American platforms creates vulnerability.
– What if Taiwan contingency erupts and U.S. demands Singapore choose sides? Planning for economic decoupling scenarios, alternative supply chains, and energy security becomes urgent. Singapore’s reliance on maritime trade and energy imports makes it acutely vulnerable to regional conflict.
Broader Implications: The Erosion of Pax Americana
The NATO command transfer, seemingly a European theater issue, actually represents a microcosm of broader American retrenchment from global security provision. For 75 years, the United States underwrote international order through military primacy, alliance networks, and willingness to bear disproportionate costs. This system enabled unprecedented prosperity for small states like Singapore that thrived on open trade, stable sea lanes, and predictable rules.
That era is ending. Whether driven by fiscal constraints, political polarization, strategic prioritization, or genuine isolationism, American willingness to lead is diminishing. Trump’s transactional approach makes explicit what has been implicit: alliances are conditional, partners are expected to pay, and American blood and treasure will not be spent where vital interests are not immediately at stake.
For Singapore and similar states, this creates profound challenges:
1. The Small State Dilemma Intensifies
Small states prosper when great power competition is managed through rules and institutions. When raw power politics dominates, small states become pawns. Singapore has skillfully navigated by being valuable to all sides, but as competition intensifies and demands for alignment grow, neutrality becomes harder to sustain.
2. Regional Order Becomes Contested
ASEAN’s centrality and the broader Indo-Pacific regional architecture assumed American presence as stabilizing ballast. Remove or reduce that presence, and regional order must be renegotiated. Does ASEAN collectively develop greater defense capability? Do bilateral alignments proliferate? Does China establish regional hegemony? Each scenario carries risks and uncertainties.
3. Economic Security Inseparable from Military Security
Trade routes, energy supplies, financial systems—all depend on stable security environments. As military alliances fracture or transform, economic relationships face strain. Singapore’s prosperity model—serving as entrepôt for global and regional trade—requires freedom of navigation and low geopolitical risk. Rising uncertainty threatens this model.
4. Values-Based Diplomacy Loses Currency
NATO was never purely transactional—it represented shared democratic values and collective security principles. Its transformation into cost-sharing exercises and capability targets reflects the eclipse of ideational foundations. For Singapore, which has balanced authoritarian governance with pro-Western foreign policy orientation, this ideological shift is actually advantageous in some respects. Purely interest-based relationships may be easier to navigate than values-laden alliances demanding democratic reforms.
However, the loss of principled multilateralism is a net negative. Singapore’s foreign policy success rested on advocating rules-based order, international law, and multilateral cooperation. If great powers increasingly ignore these norms, Singapore’s diplomatic leverage diminishes.
Conclusion: Adapt or Become Obsolete
The transfer of NATO command posts from American to European leadership is not merely an organizational shuffle. It represents the most significant restructuring of Western security architecture since NATO’s founding. For Singapore, located 10,000 kilometers from Brussels, these developments might seem distant. They are not.
The same forces driving NATO’s transformation—American retrenchment, demands for allied burden-sharing, questioning of alliance permanence—apply globally. The Indo-Pacific faces its own reckoning as Washington’s attention and resources prove finite. Singapore’s security framework, carefully constructed over decades of American primacy, must evolve.
The strategic imperative is clear: diversify partnerships, deepen multilateral arrangements, enhance indigenous capabilities, and above all, maintain strategic indispensability. Singapore must prepare for a world where American security guarantees are conditional, European powers are distracted by their own defense transformation, and regional order is increasingly contested.
Former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s observation bears repeating: “The US is no longer prepared to underwrite the global order. This makes the international environment far less orderly and predictable.” For a city-state whose existence depends on order and predictability, this represents an existential challenge.
The question is not whether Singapore should continue partnering with the United States—it should and must. Rather, Singapore must ask what those partnerships will look like when America is no longer guarantor but rather one player among many in a multipolar system. The answer will determine whether Singapore’s next decades resemble its prosperous past or something far more precarious.
NATO’s transition to European leadership is not Singapore’s crisis. But it is a warning: the world that enabled Singapore’s rise is changing fundamentally. Those who adapt will thrive. Those who cling to outdated assumptions risk irrelevance—or worse.
—