With Trump at any cost? What Europe is ready to sacrifice to keep NATO united and US as ally
Last night, US President Donald Trump crossed yet another red line in international relations. In a formal setting and live on air, he signed an executive order launching a large-scale trade war against nearly every other country in the world, including the United States’ closest allies – from Israel (17% tariff) to Taiwan (32%), from Japan (24%) to the European Union (20%).
In essence, the US has withdrawn from the structured framework of global trade while simultaneously breaking its rules. On top of that, reports have emerged in recent days that Washington has stopped paying its contributions to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After all, why fund an organisation you plan to dismantle?
This development is particularly striking because economic analysts have been unanimous in warning that such a wide-ranging trade war would also harm the US – yet even that did not deter Trump from pursuing his vision.
The anti-establishment actions of the new US administration are unlikely to end here. Trump and his government intend to "adjust" other elements of the world order as well – including security structures, something Trump has repeatedly mentioned.
And even a US exit from NATO is becoming more likely.
Foreign ministers from NATO member-states met in Brussels on Thursday, hoping to receive clarification from their American counterpart, Marco Rubio, concerning the US’s intentions, including with regard to the Alliance.
Publicly, NATO officials all insist they are "confident" of Trump's commitment to the organisation despite the lack of statements from him to confirm this. But privately they say optimism is dwindling, and the actions of Alliance leaders look like attempts to prevent the worst-case scenario. NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte has emphasised that if the US is lost, its capabilities cannot be replaced, and this must be acknowledged.
And while determination to keep the US in the Alliance remains strong, the allies' efforts have their limits, especially if Washington demonstrates readiness for not only a trade war but also a military conflict. And that, too, is becoming increasingly likely.
The denial stage
A NATO official assured European Pravda on Wednesday that the US is firmly committed to NATO and to its obligations under Article 5, pointing out how clearly Matthew Whitaker, Trump's nominee for NATO ambassador, recently confirmed by the US Congress, had spoken about this.
We were speaking on the eve of the NATO ministerial meeting, which was set to begin at the Alliance's headquarters. The main focus of the meeting is the preparations for the NATO summit in The Hague at the end of June. Additionally, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio would be attending the meeting in Brussels for the first time in the two and a half months since his appointment. His presence makes this ministerial meeting particularly significant, as his counterparts expect concrete answers from him on all key issues, including the future of the US’s cooperation with NATO.
Experts, media outlets and numerous sources all indicate that Trump’s America seeks to redefine its role within the Alliance. European allies have been discussing this possibility amongst themselves, and some are even shaping their strategic responses accordingly.
But NATO officials all the way up to its top leadership flatly reject the idea that the US’s cooperation with the Alliance will change in any way.
During a visit to Poland last week, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte made a point of addressing the issue specifically, urging everyone not even to mention the possibility that the US might step back from its commitments to NATO. He said Trump has personally promised that the United States will remain in the Alliance, and that should be enough.
"Watch the footage from the Macron visit to the Oval Office, the Starmer visit to the Oval Office, my own humble visit… In all these visits the US made clear its total commitment to NATO and to Article 5," Rutte said after a speech at the Warsaw School of Economics on 26 March. He shared details of a personal conversation he had with Trump. "The president stated this with emphasis: 'Yes, Mark, I’m committed to NATO, I’m committed to Article 5.' We can worry about many things, but let’s stop worrying about this."
However, these assurances from the secretary general, whether they are sincere or politically necessary, are incomplete without an explanation of why he considers US cooperation irreplaceable for the other members of NATO.
Rutte is convinced that the Alliance would not be able to function without the US if Washington were to leave.
Although Europe has two states with nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom and France, they would be no substitute for the US system of nuclear deterrence.
"There is no alternative to the nuclear umbrella the US is providing us," Rutte stated firmly following his speech in Warsaw. "When you look at the amount of nuclear warheads pointed at us from Russia – and increasingly, by the way, from China, which will get to 1,000 warheads by 2030 – the only credible nuclear deterrent and ultimate guarantor of our freedom here is the United States of America.
Don’t kid yourself. There is no way the French and the Brits can replace this. And still, it’s important that they have that nuclear deterrent, but it is not an alternative [to the US]."
Reality different from promises
Yet just two days after the NATO secretary general had assured everyone of America's steadfast support and its readiness to defend the other members of the Alliance, those hopes were effectively shattered.
The Washington Post published details of a secret Pentagon strategy, revealing that the US is considering only one scenario for military intervention in the event of an attack by a hostile state. And that ally is not a NATO member, but Taiwan, which the US plans to defend if China launches a military assault.
The secret memo also acknowledges that this shift in strategy increases the risk of a Russian attack on Europe without offering any plans to address it.
Nearly a full week has passed since the report surfaced, and the Pentagon has not denied its contents. On 2 April, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte essentially confirmed that he is treating the memo as a real and serious development.
And this is far from the only sign that the US is losing interest in NATO and its defenсe commitments.
The US’s shifting strategy in dealing with its allies has also impacted Ukraine. In the coming days, the Ukraine Defence Contact Group will meet without the US for the first time. This decision aligns with Washington’s broader strategy of reducing military aid to Kyiv.
Other recent steps by the US similarly hint at fundamental changes for NATO and its members. And these changes are unlikely to be mere coincidence: they all point to decreasing American involvement.
For now, these are mostly symbolic moves, but there are also practical changes in the pipeline.
For instance, at Washington’s initiative, NATO has suspended discussions on revising its approach to relations with Russia. Another major shift is the Pentagon’s potential withdrawal from commanding NATO forces in Europe – a role the US has held since the 1950s. While this decision has not yet been finalised, it could become part of a broader "significant restructuring of US combatant commands and headquarters", Pentagon officials told American journalists. If the US no longer sees itself as the primary guarantor of European security, then keeping an American general in charge of NATO’s Joint Forces Command may no longer be necessary.
If and when such reductions take place, they will have very tangible consequences. And this is entirely consistent with the Pentagon’s strategic shift towards prioritising the Indo-Pacific region, as outlined in the secret memo.
Unpleasant scenarios
It is important to emphasise that the reassuring statements from Mark Rutte and other NATO officials are not being accepted as absolute truth by allied governments. On the contrary, there is evidence that key European states are already working on a plan to gradually replace the US within the Alliance.
Even within NATO, officials have privately acknowledged that a US withdrawal from Europe is not just a possibility but a very real prospect, as multiple European Pravda sources have confirmed.
However, no one knows to what extent the US will reduce its security presence in Europe or when it will happen. Most likely, even Washington has not yet made a final decision. This is why European politicians, along with the NATO secretary general, are doing all they can to delay the process and make any transition as gradual and painless as possible.
All of European Pravda’s sources expect the NATO Summit in The Hague on 24-25 June to be the key moment.
At the summit, Trump is expected to either announce his vision for US involvement in European security or to make a final decision, depending on the outcome of discussions with the allies and what he can extract from them in return. The Financial Times has also reported that crucial changes could be linked to the summit.
The best-case scenario would be a negotiated transition in which the US hands over responsibility to its European partners over a 5-10 year period. This timeframe would allow European states to strengthen their defence industries, expand their armies, and develop the capabilities required to deter a potential Russian threat. Under this plan, the US could still provide the "nuclear umbrella", as European nations could not realistically build nuclear capabilities comparable to the US's in such a short period.
But does Trump even want this kind of "soft" transition?
Washington has made no secret of its irritation over Europe's intention to buy fewer US weapons. If Europe expands its own defence industry, it will become even less dependent on the US, something the US defence sector is unlikely to welcome.
That means less favourable scenarios cannot be ruled out, including a rapid withdrawal of some US forces and military equipment from Europe, economic pressure on European governments to replace US arms purchases, and more aggressive demands for Europeans to increase their defence spending.
And then there is the worst-case scenario: a US exit from NATO's military command structure. There is a historical precedent for this.
In the late 1950s, France, one of NATO’s founding members, got into a strategic dispute with the US over the Alliance’s future. In 1959, Paris reduced its NATO involvement, pulling part of its navy from the joint command. By 1965, France had withdrawn from NATO’s military structures altogether. While it remained a NATO member on paper, in reality it ceased to be an active participant in the Alliance for decades.
In 1995, Paris reversed course and resumed military cooperation. By 2009 France had fully rejoined NATO’s command structure, with one exception: its nuclear forces remained strictly national. Now, even that exception is up for reconsideration.
To be clear: there is no certainty that the US will follow the same path. This is only one possible scenario, and the allies are working hard to prevent it happening. But it cannot be ruled out. Even in this extreme case, NATO is expected to remain functional and cohesive.
One final, crucial point: the US does not contribute as much to NATO’s budget as some may think. Despite all the White House rhetoric, Washington provides only 16% of NATO’s total funding – an amount that other members could easily cover if necessary.
Willingness to compromise
NATO’s structural budget is, however, only a small fraction of the allies’ total defence expenditure. Currently, NATO’s total annual budget, including all funded programmes, stands at €4.6 billion, with less than half a billion allocated to the civil budget and €2.37 billion to military expenses.
Real defence capabilities, however, are determined by the strength of member states’ armies, and in this regard, the US is unquestionably ahead of all other NATO members, possibly even all of them combined. According to Alliance estimates, closing this gap could take at least a decade. The US nuclear umbrella, as previously mentioned, also has no comparable alternatives in the foreseeable future. It is true that Europe is prepared to drastically increase its defence spending. The NATO secretary general has predicted an increase to over 3% of GDP from the current 2%. But this will take time.
Europeans understand this and are willing to do almost anything to remain under US protection, at least for the time being.
Despite his reassurances about US commitment, Mark Rutte was forced to acknowledge that the Pentagon does have a plan to reduce its role in Europe’s security. Even more strikingly, he publicly stated his support for Washington’s approach. Only a few months ago it would have been unthinkable for a European leader to say such a thing, let alone the head of NATO. Now it is a reality, illustrating the extent to which Europeans are willing to bend just to align with American expectations.
This also explains the exceptionally accommodating attitude that European leaders have towards Trump, even when he crosses the line.
At times this involves outright humiliation from the US president, and yet his counterparts put up with it.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not the only leader to have been subjected to attempts by Trump to undermine his dignity or put him in an uncomfortable position, as happened during his visit to the US on 28 February. Other leaders have chosen to endure similar treatment rather than provoke the American president.
This was evident during visits to the White House by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and, even more so, French President Emmanuel Macron, who did not react in any way as Trump mocked Canada in his presence.
The most striking example, however, has been Trump’s conversation with Mark Rutte in which the US president declared his intent to annex Greenland and attempted to draw the NATO secretary general into the discussion.
"I think it [the annexation] will happen. I'm sitting with a man [referring to Rutte] that can be very instrumental. It is very important for international security," Trump stated. Even this highly inappropriate remark did not provoke a firm response from Rutte.
"When it comes to Greenland, if it joins the US or not, I will leave that outside of me in this discussion because I don't want to drag NATO into that," Rutte replied.
What’s most telling is that even this glaringly inappropriate statement drew no public criticism of the NATO secretary general from the Danish government. The only objections came from a handful of opposition politicians, such as Rasmus Jarlov.
For now, Copenhagen is willing to tolerate it.
However, this tolerance is unlikely to be infinite. Trump’s rhetoric and his actions may continue to be unacceptable for a long time.
It is difficult to speak of a genuine alliance between two countries when one is seeking to annex the sovereign territory of the other, and the Trump administration appears to be serious about this intention.
Furthermore, tensions have escalated with Trump’s launch of a large-scale trade war against the rest of the world, including Europe. While the tariffs are not directly linked to NATO, they add to the growing strain.
Perhaps the greatest risk is that the Trump administration, inevitably facing a backlash from its own policies, may seek to distract American citizens and rally them around the government.
No one can be certain that the White House won’t resort to a classic superpower strategy – a "short victorious war".
Rumours of potential military action against Iran are already circulating in the media, with expectations that NATO allies will back such an endeavour.
This is just one potential red line that could become unacceptable for European leaders. It is impossible to predict exactly how events will unfold, or what approach Trump will take.
But one thing is certain: the world has not been this uncertain in a long time, whether regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, the future of NATO, or the role of the US in global affairs.
The old world order is long dead, and now, at last, everyone realises that.
But the new one is nowhere near being built.
Sergiy Sydorenko,
Editor, European Pravda