-The author is a research analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS).

ISTANBUL

On Apr. 4, 2024, NATO celebrated its 75th anniversary, commemorating the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. The mood was positive: Russia's invasion of Ukraine had given the "braindead NATO" an "electroshock," said French President Macron [1]. Finland and Sweden had just joined NATO, significantly strengthening the alliance's northern flank. Although the US Congress was withholding a new supplemental package to Ukraine and then-candidate, now US president, Donald Trump questioned the US commitment to "delinquent" allies on the campaign trail, NATO appeared “Trump-proof.” At the Washington Summit in the summer, allies reaffirmed transatlantic unity. They established a new NATO command to oversee aid to Ukraine (NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine) in the US base in Wiesbaden, Germany [2].

Fast forward to Apr. 4, 2025, and everything looks different. The words and actions of the new Trump administration have shattered trust in the American commitment to defend Europe. According to a recent survey, most Europeans now see Trump as an "enemy" rather than an ally of Europe [3]. The possibility of Europe needing to defend itself without America has emerged, and the very survival of NATO is at stake.

Transatlantic cracks

A few weeks after taking office, Trump reversed US policy towards Ukraine, opening negotiations with Russia, accepting many of the Kremlin's requests, and forcing Kyiv to the negotiating table by withholding aid and intelligence for a week. Now, Ukraine faces the prospect of signing an unfavorable ceasefire agreement or losing American assistance for good.

Unlike Ukraine, the rest of Europe is tied to the US by the North Atlantic Treaty's Article 5 commitment that an attack on one ally is an attack on all. However, many in Europe are now wondering: will we be next? Trump and his advisors are lashing out at traditional allies. They see them as "freeloaders" that need to be "bailed out" [4]. Future US commitments to NATO could be made conditional on certain concessions, such as increased defense spending or revision of trade policy vis-à-vis America – turning defense into a "product" to be paid for.

Some of America's demands could be interpreted as a more advanced form of burden-sharing, consistent with new strategic priorities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that Europeans should take the lead in conventional deterrence of the continent. At the same time the US focuses on other issues, such as China and homeland defense [5]. Burden-sharing is a long-term trend, shared by previous US administrations, and other allies could contribute more by increasing defense spending and meeting a greater portion of NATO capability requirements.

However, these requests are hard to separate from other, more sinister elements that are now recurring themes in US rhetoric. Trump's continuous references to annexing Greenland (part of Denmark) and Canada directly threaten the territorial integrity of America's closest allies. Special Envoy Witkoff's claim that Russia does not represent a threat to Europe – together with indications that the US is considering pausing cyber offensive operations and lifting sanctions on the Kremlin, suggests that Washington could seek appeasement with Putin over Europe instead of reassuring exposed allies [6].

All these actions are detrimental to deterrence. Even if the US did not have the goal to abandon Europe, adversaries such as Russia would see the current crisis of confidence as an opportunity to further strain the Atlantic alliance. NATO's strategic concept emphasizes the transatlantic bond as a core pillar of deterrence [7]. Today, that pillar is cracking dangerously.

Will NATO survive?

NATO is more than just the transatlantic bond. It is also an integrated military structure that binds together 32 armies. No other alliance approaches NATO's level of institutionalization. Allies develop their force structures collectively, follow the same defense plans, and train and exercise under unified command. While the NATO command structure relies heavily on a US backbone (in terms of bases, enablers, and commanders – including Supreme Allied Commander Europe or SACEUR), European armies are well integrated inside it [8].

The best way for NATO to survive might be to make its structure less reliant on the US. European countries and Canada can do so by increasing their share of the defense burden and by developing European capabilities that could, over time, make up for the US backbone. All this will require significant investments. The European Commission's ReArm Europe-Readiness 2030 initiative, unlocking a potential 800 billion euros, represents an opportunity for EU member states –as well as potential candidates and selected partners– to boost their defense spending and build a strong European deterrent component [9].

However, this will not solve all problems. If Trump really wanted to break up NATO –either to force concessions or because he has no interest in European security– he would be capable of doing so. The congressional resolution adopted in 2023 makes it harder for the US president to unilaterally withdraw from NATO [10]. However, Trump could make matters worse by staying within the alliance and blocking its functioning – for instance, if a confrontation with some allies broke out.

That is not necessarily the most likely scenario. But it is within the realm of possibilities. In that case, European countries and Canada would need a backup plan. They would need a backup plan not just to save NATO, but to ensure their own security.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-31/macron-says-putin-brought-brain-dead-nato-back-with-electroshock

[2] https://www.nato.int/cps/cn/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm

[3] https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2025/03/20/les-europeens-face-a-la-guerre-et-trump-10-points-sur-un-sondage-exclusif/

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

[5] https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/%204064113/opening-remarks-by-secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth-at-ukraine-defense-contact/

[6] https://kyivindependent.com/putin-doesnt-want-to-take-all-of-europe-says-witkoff/

[7] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_56626.htm

[8] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/why-natos-defence-planning-process-will-transform-the-alliance-for-decades-to-come/

[9] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sv/statement_25_673

[10] https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/

​​​​​​​*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.

[b1]Türkçesi ile başlığı aynı yaptım.