As Marco Rubio ended his two-day trip to Italy, the questions remain the same—critical and unanswered. The US-Israel war on Iran has exposed the already ripping seams of the US-NATO relations. Rubio’s visit hasn’t exactly hemmed the frayed ends even though the US Secretary of State after “very positive meetings” with Pope Leo and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni insisted that he remained a strong supporter of NATO. However, he added that the refusal of some NATO allies to let the US use its military bases in Europe as a part of its Iran operation was “a problem” that “has to be examined.” As for the US military presence in Europe, “no final decisions were made.”
Back in the Oval Office, Donald Trump, however, holds a vastly different opinion. Ever since the strikes were launched on Iran on February 28, Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with NATO allies, accusing them of “not supporting enough” and even calling them “useless.”
Trump’s ‘NATO lexicon’ doesn’t end there but has rather infamously included words like “paper tigers”, “cowards”, “freeloaders,” among other things.
Last week, the Pentagon announced troop withdrawals from Germany. The move was triggered by Chancellor Friedrich Merz who opined that Iran had humiliated Washington enough. Soon after the announcement, Trump also took a swipe at Spain and Italy adding why shouldn’t he consider withdrawing troops from both countries. “Why shouldn’t I? Italy has not been of any help to us and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible.”
Europe gets the message
Soon after the withdrawal announcement, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said European leaders had “gotten the message.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen voiced that message out loud, regardless. “We have to step up our military capabilities to be able to defend and protect ourselves.”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, publicly questioned whether Trump would fulfil NATO’s pledge in the face of a Russian attack? “Europe’s biggest, most important question is, if the United States is ready to be as loyal as it is described in our treaties,” he questioned recently, in a departure from the norm.
Is Europe on its own now?
Whether Europe needs a plan B is not a relevant question but what is that plan, is more like it.
With Trump constantly undermining the alliance in scathing language, no less, European countries have been rethinking their security for a potentially post-US future. The EU ambassadors recently held a first table top exercise to test how their own mutual existence pact can be worked out. The drill did not go down well with Baltic states, who reportedly, voiced concerns as to how such an exercise could give the Trump administration a pretext and justification for disengaging from European security. But the 2025 NATO summit already laid the groundwork in that direction. When the allies nodded to a landmark demand of the Trump administration— that they increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035.
Sensing the shift, European countries have already taken over the responsibility of supporting Ukraine financially and politically. Especially as Trump has increasingly sided with Putin in trying to force Kyiv to concede and hand over disputed territories to Russia. Most European leaders have also come to recognise Ukraine as a technological and military asset rather than a liability.
Also read: Trump’s upcoming China visit: What to expect
Non-nuclear countries such as Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Poland, have so far relied entirely on America's nuclear umbrella. The ever shifting geopolitical equations have raised several difficult questions. Who will step in to fill in the void left by Washington is one of them. While German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has indicated at the possibility of assuming a larger role within NATO, it is unlikely it can fill in the large void single-handedly. NATO without the US, would not be defenceless, nor necessarily small and would still be left with two nuclear powers in the UK and France.
The 32-nation military alliance was founded by the US, Canada and their European allies as a bulwark against Soviet threats. Trump’s disdain for the alliance dates back to before he resumed the Oval Office and once he did, things escalated. Threats to take over Greenland were not allowed to slide. The alliance has its reasons in place, an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members. In case of Iran, the attack was unprovoked, which makes NATO allies not obligated to assist. A NATO without the US nuclear umbrella would be unthinkable at one point in time, but that time has long passed.
To put it colloquially, with the US, NATO would still be a large enough force. A recent CSIS assessment estimates the active military personnel of the European NATO countries at 1.86 million. NATO's own annual report says, even though the US accounts for 60 per cent of the defence expenditure, Europe and Canada together make up the remaining 40 per cent.
Several scholarly analyses suggest a less dependent Europe is not just possible but better. In Cato Policy Analysis 2024 titled ‘Is There Life After NATO’, professor Marc Trachtenberg opines, “The world will not end if the United States withdraws from the alliance. The Europeans with a combined GDP (by some estimates) roughly five times as large as Russia’s are certainly capable of defending themselves and if America withdrew, they would have little choice but to work some system for doing so.”
While Trump’s statements are made impulsively and without restraint, he, however, cannot leave NATO without a vote in the Congress. To formally do so, a two-thirds majority in the US Senate or an act of Congress stand in his way. His tariffs, tirade and threats of troop withdrawals continue and so does the attempt to punish member nations who have not ‘supported’ the US. He can also tinker with the roughly 84,000 American troops spread across Europe.
But how far will Trump go is as unpredictable as the future of the alliance. Which direction it takes a turn is again as uncertain as the next round of negotiations with Iran. The fact that Europe needs to step up and take its security in its own hands is certain. The alliance acknowledging the problem is a step in the right direction.
Follow us
