The future of alliances: On Independence Day, America wonders who its partners are

First Post

6 hours ago

On this Independence Day, as the United States reflects on its global standing, shifting alliances and emerging power blocs are challenging long-standing partnerships and reshaping America's role in an increasingly multipolar world read more
(File) Two-and-a-half-year-old Zacky Kaplan rides his scooter while draped in the American flag as he makes his way along the parade route during the Santa Monica Fourth of July Parade on July 4, 2019 in Santa Monica, California. AP
As Americans celebrate Independence Day, a more introspective mood defines the strategic community in Washington. Who still stands with the United States and under what terms? With shifting global power dynamics, America's alliances, from the entrenched institutions of Nato to emerging security groupings in the Indo-Pacific, are transforming rapidly.
The rise of multipolarity, the transactional diplomacy of President Donald Trump and the recalibration of global threat perceptions are reshaping the architecture of American global leadership.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
From Europe to the Pacific, and from West Asia to South Asia, the United States faces this question whether traditional partnerships still align with its interests or whether those interests are evolving too fast for alliances to keep up.
Nato: An alliance under review
The transatlantic alliance that once formed the bedrock of post-World War II global security is now wading through uncharted waters. Multiple reports say that Nato's European members have begun quietly planning for a possible US troop reduction in Europe, fearing abrupt shifts in American defence commitments under Trump's second presidency.
The United States has currently deployed around 80,000 troops across Europe, critical for deterrence, especially on Nato's eastern flank, but allies fear a drawdown of up to 20,000 troops may be imminent.
This isn't simply a numbers game. The logistical, intelligence and airpower capabilities of American forces remain irreplaceable in the near term. European Nato members, especially those bordering Russia, are concerned they lack the resources to fill a vacuum left by Washington.
Nato's recently updated defence plans still depend heavily on US power projection capabilities, and despite pledges of coordination, many European capitals feel left in the dark. The Hague Summit Declaration of June 2025 notably stripped references to international law and the UN Charter, an omission that experts interpret as a symptom of growing rifts within the alliance, especially over diverging threat perceptions.
Shifting tides in the Indo-Pacific
While European allies worry about America stepping back, the Indo-Pacific sees a different trend of a concerted US effort to strengthen partnerships in the face of China's growing assertiveness. The United States, Japan, India and Australia — collectively known as the Quad — have deepened cooperation across defence, maritime security and critical minerals supply chains, according to a statement following their latest ministerial meeting in Washington.
This Indo-Pacific shift isn't new but has gained renewed urgency under the Trump administration's emphasis on 'interest-based' coalitions. In February this year, the US reaffirmed its trilateral security partnership with Japan and South Korea, stressing joint deterrence, exercises and opposition to coercive actions in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
These declarations, while robust, also indicate a shift from rigid treaty-based alliances to looser, interest-driven partnerships that reflect the complexity of regional geopolitics and China's rise.
India: A strategic pillar in America's Asia strategy
India's growing role in US strategy is unmistakable. In a significant step, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and India's Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently agreed to formalise a new 10-year defence framework.
The Pentagon's statement highlighted pending arms deals, expanded joint exercises and deeper integration of defence industrial supply chains, an indication that the US views India not only as a partner in balancing China but also as a long-term strategic ally in South Asia.
The new framework builds on years of growing interoperability and shared geopolitical interests, and despite India's strategic non-alignment, it is increasingly woven into a US-led regional architecture. Yet even here, the relationship reflects a pragmatic, transactional logic where India seeks technology and autonomy while the US seeks balance against China.
Britain's realignment: The India connection
One of the most symbolic realignments beyond the US sphere has come from one of its closest allies: the United Kingdom. Post-Brexit Britain has sought to redefine its global relevance, and its newly signed Free Trade Agreement with India marks a key shift in that quest.
The agreement isn't just about trade, it also marks a shift in global strategy, focussing more on building one-on-one relationships and working closely within regions, rather than relying mainly on long-standing ties with Europe. By negotiating a major economic accord independently of Washington, London signals a more autonomous foreign policy posture.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
While the UK remains a committed Nato member, it is increasingly positioning itself as a connector between Europe, the Anglosphere, and the Indo-Pacific, particularly India. This echoes a broader trend that former American allies now seek diverse portfolios of strategic partnerships, hedging against an unpredictable Washington.
Flexible alliances in a multipolar world
The age of rigid alliance structures — typified by Cold War-era Nato — is giving way to a more fluid, transactional model. The Trump administration appears to envision the world in terms of 'spheres of influence' where great powers exert regional dominance rather than universal leadership.
The inward-looking policies of Trump is contributing to the consolidation of global multipolarity. This world order makes room for overlapping, often competing, coalitions rather than the clear hierarchies of the past.
For instance, Nato's Article 5 — 'an attack on one is an attack on all' — remains intact, but its political commitment is under strain. Trump has signalled inconsistent support, leaving allies to interpret America's intent based on rhetoric as much as action. Simultaneously, US defence priorities are being recalibrated toward Asia and, more selectively, West Asia, leaving Europe and parts of Africa to chart more independent security paths.
Diverging paths in Europe and West Asia
In Europe, this divergence is already evident. The Trump administration has repeatedly squeezed or frozen military aid to Ukraine while softening criticism of Russian actions, indicating a preference for transactional peace over long-term strategic deterrence.
In contrast, European allies have stepped up aid and sanctions, reaffirming their commitment to a rules-based order. Nato members have committed to boosting defence spending to five per cent of GDP over the next decade, barring Spain, a recognition that reliance on US security guarantees is no longer a given.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In West Asia, the US maintains its commitment to Israel and responds decisively when its interests are directly challenged, such as in airstrikes against Iranian facilities. However, its broader approach reflects a retreat from the deeply involved 'nation-building' efforts of previous decades.
Instead, economic ties with Gulf states and arms sales are preferred tools of influence. Meanwhile, Russia and China are expanding their footprints in parts of West Asia and Africa, capitalising on gaps left by waning US engagement.
Allies seeking autonomy, hedging bets
Faced with a United States that demands more and promises less, many countries are pursuing strategic autonomy. The European Union, led by France and Germany, is building independent defence capabilities. Japan and South Korea, while still close to Washington, are also investing heavily in self-reliance and diversifying partnerships, particularly in Southeast Asia.
The same applies to India, which continues to buy Russian arms while deepening ties with the US. In Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia, many states are practising what analysts call 'strategic hedging' — refusing to choose between Washington, Moscow and Beijing, and instead engaging with all based on immediate benefits.
The Trump doctrine: Transaction over tradition
At the heart of these shifts is the Trump administration's explicitly transactional approach to foreign policy. Unlike the idealism of previous US administrations, Trump's worldview prioritises deals, burden-sharing and cost-benefit calculations.
Alliances, under this doctrine, are useful only in so far as they deliver tangible gains for American interests. This has left some partners unsure of the durability of US commitments and prompted others to take more responsibility for their security.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This approach does not mean isolationism. The US remains deeply involved in global affairs. But it increasingly favours coalitions of the willing, tailored engagements and strategic partnerships that serve discrete goals over blanket security guarantees or open-ended commitments.
Independence Day in an interdependent age
On this Independence Day, as Americans mark their historic break from imperial power, their country faces a world where its power is no longer uncontested. The US remains a global leader, but the nature of leadership is changing.
The liberal international order, as understood till date, is at least under renovation, if not demolished. Alliances once based on shared values now rest more on shared interests. Power is diffused, and loyalty cannot be assumed.
For the United States, this may be a moment of recalibration and realignment. But that recalibration warrants a new understanding of alliances as dynamic partnerships shaped by mutual benefit, adaptability and realism, not nostalgia. The flags flying across America today honour a legacy of independence. But sustaining leadership in today's multipolar world may require more cooperation than ever, just of a different kind.