
NATO faces make-or-break decision on a post-US future
Ahead of its June 24-25 summit in The Hague, NATO is weighing up whether it can truly continue to count on US support (and membership), whether it will become a European-only organization, or whether it has a future at all.
This suggests a massive shift for the intergovernmental organization that sits at the heart of defense and security for Europe, and beyond.
The past year has changed everything. Trump's anti-NATO rhetoric has become increasingly vociferous and disrespectful, undermining both the organization itself, and the other 31 NATO member countries, which include Germany, France, Canada, Turkey, the UK, Sweden and Norway.
Add to this the Trump administration's embrace of international isolationism, and the potential, consequential loss of clear US backing for the alliance, all of which highlight the organization's historical dependence on the US.
This is what makes the June 2025 summit so critical. It is a make-or-break opportunity to unveil a plan for NATO's wholesale transformation, or an event conclusively marking its obsolescence. The plan itself is simple: build – or rebuild – NATO as a possible Europe-only endeavor.
If this plan becomes reality, historians of European security and defense may spot earlier parallels for NATO with the original Western European Union (WEU). The WEU was the European defense security structure established in 1954 under the Paris Accords, which helped to redefine relations with West Germany.
Ultimately subsumed into both NATO and EU governance structures, the WEU's prime goal at the time was to bolster the European content of the Atlantic alliance.
There is a deep irony in Trump's bluster about NATO states paying more towards their defense. The US has, for decades, been sanguine at best, and hostile at worst on almost every form of European defense autonomy, from basic operationss established by the EU to more ambitious strategies.
Instead, the US has insisted almost exclusively on increased defense spending by other NATO members, improved interoperability between the various national forces, but all 'in furtherance of a US-dominated alliance', rather than a more authentically US-European approach to safeguarding both European and American interests, according to Max Bergman, a former senior adviser to the US State Department. What is the future of NATO?
If the US is now reducing its involvement in NATO, or abdicating entirely, the only option for NATO is to reduce its dependence on the US, and in doing so, to focus more on Europe. A clear mandate is needed to ensure that being US-less does not render NATO itself useless. Without a mandate, opportunistic space would quickly open up for an aggressive Russia.
Trump made clear early in his first administration that he was no fan of NATO, and argued that its funding structure should no longer overburden the US.
In his second administration, Trump has been even clearer, has variously threatened to pull US troops from NATO joint exercises, reduce US security commitments to NATO as a whole, remove some or all of the 80,000 US troops on permanent rotation in Europe and vastly reduce the US's contribution to NATO's central budget of US$5 billion.
These threats are now repeated routinely by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration. This has profoundly rattled NATO as an institution and its individual member states.
As NATO's own records show, from 2023 onward, there have been major increases in European defense spending. But the opportunity to keep spending commitments high, as well as overhaul the organzsation to meet Ukraine's demands and defense opportunities for the EU as a whole – which could have been nailed onto NATO's 75th anniversary summit in 2024 – did not materialize.
There are pros and cons of a new Europe-focused approach for NATO, and these will work themselves out in the final five-to-ten-year plan, which is being prepared ahead of the June summit.
For some, building a European defense mission within NATO is an opportunity to plot a new and more sustainable course for NATO, rather than trying to shore up an expanding US-shaped hole. Spending increases that reduce NATO's perceived helplessness, or reliance on the US, may also be a benefit.
For others, the removal of US command and control, hardware, software, intelligence and much more from NATO is a futile endeavor that will leave the organization in pieces at best, and present Russia with a golden opportunity for continued eastern aggression at worst.
The signals from Washington remain confusing. Trump's suggestion of a sudden and total US withdrawal from European defense was tempered in April by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's suggestion that Trump remained supportive of NATO but also demanding expanded spending commitments (these demands vary from 2.5% to 5% of GDP), and for other members to take on far greater responsibility for developing NATO's capabilities.
Many members now support the emerging 'coalition of the willing', led by France and Britain, to underwrite a force and secure a post-conflict deal for Ukraine.
In figuring out the current provision of military force, including logistics and intelligence capacities in addition to air, land and sea forces, NATO members are aiming to remove the US's presence and fill the vacuum with European assets over a decade.
The task is colossal, and not without risks. NATO does not want an overnight abdication of the US, as it currently relies far too heavily upon US capabilities, such as long-range precision missiles, and crucially, heavy-lift aircraft, which are vital in shifting armored forces around the continent rapidly.
NATO also wants a clear plan, which new member Finland has emphasized as crucial, to prevent an abrupt and disjointed transition that Russia could exploit.
A new vision must be set out by the end of June in order to deal sensibly with ongoing defense spending commitments, reworked governance structures, and possible planned responses to the war in Ukraine.
Scrapping NATO is unnecessary and leaves Europe – and the US, if the White House could but see far enough ahead – open to innumerable threats and consequences. Even without the US, NATO provides a valuable structure for security cooperation in Europe.
Strengthening European capabilities within NATO, rather than creating an entirely new defense structure, makes sense.
Amelia Hadfield is head of Department of Politics, University of Surrey
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South China Morning Post
37 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Behind Trump's South Korea deal, a plan to transform global shipbuilding
South Korea has pledged US$150 billion to help its shipbuilders enter the US market as part of its new trade deal with Washington, a move that could help America revive its shipbuilding industry and counter China's dominance in the sector. Advertisement US President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that the United States and South Korea had agreed a 'full and complete' trade deal, which would see the US impose a 15 per cent tariff on South Korean goods and receive US$350 billion of investment from its Asian ally. Shortly after, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung stated that US$150 billion of the promised investment would be dedicated to shipbuilding – an industry where South Korean firms are second only to China in global market share. The capital would provide 'solid support' for South Korean companies entering the US shipbuilding industry, Lee wrote in a Facebook post on Thursday. The wider US$350 billion investment package was intended to solidify bilateral cooperation in strategic industries, including semiconductors, he added. Seoul clarified in a media briefing on Thursday morning that the promised funds would not come in the form of direct equity investments, but 'will primarily consist of loans and guarantees'. Advertisement Earlier this week, local media outlets in South Korea reported that Seoul had proposed a multibillion-dollar project to Washington named 'Make American Shipbuilding Great Again' during their trade negotiations, which would involve large-scale investments in the US by Korean shipbuilders and government financial support measures.


South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US and allies accuse Iran of covert overseas ‘kill, kidnap' policy
The US and more than a dozen of its allies on Thursday accused Iran of attempting to kill or kidnap people in Western countries, including dissidents, journalists and officials. 'We are united in our opposition to the attempts of Iranian intelligence services to kill, kidnap and harass people in Europe and North America in clear violation of our sovereignty,' the countries said in a joint statement. The governments – of Albania, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the US – called on the Iranian authorities to immediately stop such illegal activities. 'These services are increasingly collaborating with international criminal organisations to target journalists, dissidents, Jewish citizens, and current and former officials in Europe and North America. This is unacceptable,' the statement said. Iran's embassy in London did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 01:47 Brics leaders condemn strikes on Iran and tariffs but avoid direct mention of US, Israel Brics leaders condemn strikes on Iran and tariffs but avoid direct mention of US, Israel Earlier in July it dismissed a report by UK lawmakers which said Tehran posed a significant and wide-ranging threat to Britain as unfounded, defamatory and dangerous.


South China Morning Post
7 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US Senate Democrats try resolution to cancel Trump's Brazil tariffs
Top Senate Democrats are working to block President Donald Trump's plan to implement high duties on goods from Brazil, charging that they are being used for political purposes. Advertisement 'We're particularly concerned about these tariffs on Brazil – which are being put into place to get the Brazilian Supreme Court to stop its prosecution of Trump's long-time friend Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's former president who is facing criminal charges for inciting a violent coup,' Senators Tim Kaine, Chuck Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen and Ron Wyden said in a statement. A 50 per cent tariff is set to be imposed on Brazilian imports next week, though the emergency declaration exempts many of the country's biggest exports. 02:12 Brazil plans to retaliate against US tariffs that partly aim to free former leader Bolsonaro Brazil plans to retaliate against US tariffs that partly aim to free former leader Bolsonaro The senators intend to file a privileged resolution, one of the few tools Congress has to rein in the president's tariff efforts. The move would allow them to bypass certain procedural hurdles and force a vote on the floor, requiring senators to go on the record with their position. A separate Democrat-led move earlier this year to end the tariffs on Canadian goods passed with bipartisan support, though its companion resolution in the House was blocked before getting a vote. Trump could veto such a resolution, which he threatened to do to the one to end tariffs on Canadian imports, though Congress could override the veto with a two-thirds supermajority. Advertisement