Curtis ScaparrottiEdit

Curtis M. Scaparrotti is a retired United States Army general who served as Commander of the United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) from 2013 to 2019. During his tenure, he led the alliance through a period of intensified great-power competition, NATO’s adaptation to a more assertive Russia, and a shifting security landscape in Europe and the surrounding regions. His time in command is often cited by observers who emphasize deterrence, alliance burden-sharing, and the modernization of allied forces as central pillars of U.S. and NATO strategy.

Scaparrotti’s career in the Army spanned multiple commands and staff roles, culminating in two of the department’s most consequential theater-level postings. As commander of the U.S. European Command, he was responsible for NATO’s military posture in Europe, crisis management planning, and the integration of allied forces in the defense of member states. In this role he worked closely with NATO partners to bolster readiness, expand joint exercises, and sustain a credible deterrent against potential aggression in the eastern flank and beyond. In his capacity as SACEUR, he interfaced with alliance capitals and military commanders to shape wartime plans, forward defense concepts, and interoperability standards that underpin alliance cohesion.

Early life and career

Curtis Scaparrotti began his ascent in the U.S. Army through a long sequence of command assignments, staff positions, and joint-service roles that built the professional foundation for high-level leadership. His career reflects the typical arc of a four-star general who moves from field commands to interagency and alliance-oriented leadership. Along the way, he participated in operations and planning efforts across different theaters and worked to adapt U.S. and allied forces to a security environment characterized by uncertainty, crisis signaling, and rapid technological change.

U.S. European Command and SACEUR (2013–2019)

As head of United States European Command and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Scaparrotti oversaw NATO’s deterrence and defense posture during a period defined by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the ongoing contest with a rising China, and the need to reassure European allies of Washington’s commitment. His leadership emphasized several core priorities:

Deterrence and defense on the eastern flank: He prioritized preparing for high-intensity conflict in Europe and maintaining credible options for responding to aggression against NATO members.
Alliance readiness and interoperability: He pushed reforms to training, exercises, and force posture to ensure that multinational forces could operate together seamlessly, a factor many observers view as critical to NATO’s effectiveness.
Burden-sharing and defense modernization: He argued for sustained investment in new capabilities, cyber and space resilience, missile defense, and modernized conventional forces as essential for deterring adversaries and protecting allied interests.
Deterrence through presence: His tenure reinforced permanent and rotational deployments, together with rapid-reaction forces, to reassure allies and deter potential aggressors.

Throughout his time in Europe, Scaparrotti was involved in coordinating with NATO partners on ceding greater responsibility to regional defense structures, expanding exercises such as multinational drills, and sustaining a defense-industrial base capable of matching evolving threats. His approach reflected a belief that a capable, ready, and integrated alliance is the most effective means to shape strategic outcomes without necessitating large-scale direct confrontation.

Doctrine, strategy, and priorities

From a defense-policy standpoint, Scaparrotti’s leadership aligned with a conventional-warfighting emphasis that many in the defense establishment associate with effective deterrence. Key themes associated with his tenure include:

A focus on credible deterrence: The logic is that visible, capable forces and interoperable plans deter aggression by raising the costs of any potential move by adversaries.
Alliance cohesion and burden-sharing: Strengthening NATO’s political and military unity is viewed as essential to maintaining a stable security order in Europe and ensuring that American security guarantees do not bear an unsustainable burden for a few partners.
Modernization and readiness: Emphasizing investments in next-generation weapons, digital warfare capabilities, space and cyber resilience, and improved command-and-control to ensure timely and coordinated responses.
A strategic emphasis on plurality of threats: While Russia remained a central concern, the broader security picture—including strategic competition with a rising China and regional flashpoints—guided planning and posture decisions.

These priorities reflect a viewpoint that a robust, ready, and united alliance is the most reliable hedge against destabilizing actions by adversaries, while maintaining credible options for diplomacy when it serves American or alliance interests.

Controversies and debates

As with any high-profile defense leadership role, Scaparrotti’s approach provoked discussion and debate, particularly among those who view strategic risk management differently. From a perspective aligned with a steadfast deterrence posture, several points are commonly debated:

Deterrence versus diplomacy: Critics of a hard-line deterrence stance argue that it can raise risk of miscalculation or provoke arms competition. Proponents counter that without credible deterrence, diplomacy becomes untenable because adversaries doubt U.S. and alliance commitments.
NATO burden-sharing: Some observers argue that European partners should shoulder more of the defense burden, while others contend that U.S. leadership and investment are essential to maintaining a credible alliance. The debate centers on how to balance national defense priorities with allied obligations.
Military modernization versus arms control: A common debate concerns the right mix of modernization, readiness, and arms-control diplomacy. Supporters of robust modernization contend that advanced capabilities deter aggression and preserve strategic options, while critics worry about escalating arms competition and destabilizing regional dynamics.
Deployment posture and regional focus: Decisions about force posture, forward presence, and readiness exercises can be seen as either prudent reassurance of allies or provocative signaling to rivals. The right-of-center view generally emphasizes practical deterrence and alliance credibility, arguing that modern, interoperable forces are essential to deter aggression and safeguard stability.

In this context, Scaparrotti’s record is often cited as an illustration of a philosophy that prioritizes a capable, unified alliance and a steady, credible posture as the best protection for American interests and for those European nations that share the security burden.

Legacy

Scaparrotti’s tenure as SACEUR is viewed by supporters as having reinforced NATO’s deterrence architecture at a time of strategic competition. His work helped sustain alliance readiness, expand joint training across member states, and maintain a steady commitment to ensuring that European defense remains a core U.S. security priority. His leadership is frequently cited in discussions about how to translate political resolve into concrete military capabilities that deter aggression and reassure allies without appearing overbearing or provocative.