<p>NATO’s Indo-Pacific pivot, primarily driven by the United States, marks a significant strategic shift. However, major European NATO members express differing views and adopt varied strategic approaches to this shift. This article explores the contrasting responses of the UK, France, and Germany to NATO’s Indo-Pacific pivot. While the UK has strongly supported the strategy as part of its ‘Global Britain’ agenda and its alliance with the US, France has pursued an active Indo-Pacific role to safeguard its overseas territories and economic interests. Germany, on the other hand, exhibits cautious engagement, prioritizing European security and economic ties with China. The article integrates “Status” into the “Autonomy-Security” trade-off model of asymmetric alliances to explain these divergent responses. The standard “Autonomy-Security” trade-off model posits that autonomy and security are the primary benefits members gain from an alliance. However, it overlooks the fact that some members regard status as a significant objective. The pursuit of status influences changes in these two benefits, which in turn affects members’ behavior within the alliance. We argue that, faced with the security threat from Russia, these three countries are compelled to support NATO’s Indo-Pacific pivot in exchange for security guarantees. However, their differing quests for status result in varying levels of support: the UK aligns with US leadership, France pursues its Indo-Pacific ambitions, and Germany focuses on maintaining autonomy within Europe. The article concludes that while NATO’s Indo-Pacific strategy is likely to endure, its trajectory will depend on the evolving dynamics among major players in the European security landscape — the US, Russia, and Europe, as well as the balance European states strike among three major objectives — autonomy, security, and status.</p>