Washington, D.C. [U.S.], July 15 (ANI): A senior U.S. defense official has dismissed the idea of a coalition of “middle powers,” arguing that countries would waste time and resources pursuing such a strategy as global alliances evolve under the current U.S. administration’s foreign policy.
In a post on X, Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby argued that countries seeking closer alignment outside the U.S.-led framework lack the unity needed to form an effective coalition capable of challenging American global influence.
His comments come as NATO allies strengthen cooperation in response to ongoing discussions about Washington’s long-term commitment to the alliance.
At the same time, several European countries are seeking to reduce their dependence on the United States by expanding domestic defense industries and strengthening diplomatic ties with other partners.
“There is a great deal of hubbub about a collective ‘middle powers’ strategy these days. At DoW, we are not concerned that this is a serious possibility. Rather, we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will think it is and waste valuable time, money, and political capital on a distraction,” Colby wrote.
According to the World Economic Forum, the world’s traditional great powers are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Middle powers are generally considered the next tier of influential countries. While Australia, Canada, and Japan have long been viewed as middle powers, countries such as Brazil and Indonesia are increasingly included because of their growing geopolitical influence.
India, however, has rejected the “middle power” label.
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has instead described India as a “power in the middle,” emphasizing the country’s strategic autonomy and its growing role in global affairs.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has taken a different view, calling for greater cooperation among middle powers to navigate an international order increasingly shaped by major powers such as the United States and China.
“The middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” Carney said during discussions in Davos.
Colby, the principal adviser to the secretary of war on defense strategy and international affairs, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in April 2025.
Since taking office, he has become one of the leading architects of the administration’s “America First” national security strategy.
Reports indicate that Colby is overseeing development of the 2026 National Defense Strategy, which prioritizes homeland security, the Western Hemisphere, and countering China while advocating a reduced U.S. military footprint in Europe and the Middle East.
Over the past year, he has been associated with several major policy initiatives, including the temporary suspension of military aid to Ukraine, a reduction of U.S. troop levels in Romania, and a comprehensive review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership involving Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
According to The Washington Post, Colby has emerged as a leading advocate for the view that countering China should take precedence over maintaining longstanding U.S. defense commitments elsewhere. The newspaper said the approach has generated debate within Washington and among lawmakers.
Reflecting that strategic outlook, Colby argued that proposals to create alternative security blocs are based on a flawed reading of global geopolitics.
“We are flexible realists. So, we view the international scene through the prism of interest, geography, economics, military power, etc. ‘Middle powers’ don’t have a coherent basis for alignment,” he wrote.
Colby also rejected suggestions that traditional allies are distancing themselves from Washington.
“We see an upsurge in desire for engagement with the United States, not a reduction,” he said.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, countries not only see the value of American engagement, they can no longer take it for granted. We unquestionably see an incredibly strong and continuing demand signal for U.S. military presence and engagement around the world.”
At the same time, media reports indicate that European governments are accelerating efforts to strengthen the continent’s defense industrial base, energy infrastructure, and technological capabilities amid uncertainty over the future scope of U.S. support for NATO.
Those efforts were underscored this week when leaders from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Ukraine, and six partner nations met in Paris after a NATO summit in Ankara to launch a joint European anti-ballistic missile initiative.
Colby dismissed suggestions that policy differences with Washington would undermine the competitiveness of the U.S. defense industry.
“The simple fact of the matter is that no alternative country or countries can compete with the U.S. defense industrial base, either in quantity or quality,” he said.
“The United States, as the President says, makes the best equipment, and we make it at a scale that no plausible competitor can match. If anything, access to the American DIB is a privilege, not a right.”
That assessment contrasts with data cited by The New York Times, which reported that although Europe increased defense spending by 14% in 2025, purchases from U.S. aerospace and defense companies fell by nearly half.
Canada has also expanded defense cooperation with European partners, committing to a joint defense investment fund worth more than $150 billion while broadening diplomatic engagement with China.
Despite those developments, Colby said Washington welcomes allies increasing their defense spending, provided those investments complement rather than compete with U.S. industrial capabilities.
“We welcome allies’ investment in their own DIBs, but in ways that are collaborative with America’s rather than trying in vain to replicate or supplant it,” Colby said. (ANI)
About The Author
