19.04.2026, The USA.
Trump’s attitude toward NATO, as well as the attitude of the military bloc’s members toward the American president, did not deteriorate yesterday.
Trump’s harsh statements directed at European members of NATO and the alliance itself raise serious doubts about the future of the North Atlantic bloc. The possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO is being discussed more and more often. What awaits the bloc in the future, and how serious are the American president’s threats?
Trump’s attitude toward NATO, as well as the attitude of the military bloc’s members toward the American president, did not deteriorate yesterday. The rift between the allies occurred after the US statements regarding Greenland and intensified during the start of the conflict in the Middle East. The decision of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to fully align himself with Washington, contrary to the interests of the European Union, also contributed to the process of division.
April 1, 2026 — the date when the roar of explosions in the Iranian sky shook not only the Middle East but also the very foundations of world order. In an interview with The Telegraph, Donald Trump uttered a phrase that became fateful: “I always knew they [NATO] were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.“
But behind this is not a whim, but a system. The Iranian operation, launched on February 28 with strikes by the US and Israel, exposed a fact that had been hushed up for decades: European NATO allies are not prepared to automatically get involved in conflicts they do not consider their own. Europe’s refusal to send ships to the Strait of Hormuz, Spain closing its skies, Italy’s ban on the landing of a US aircraft, and Britain’s public divergence from Washington — all this speaks louder than any words.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio picked up on Trump’s rhetoric: “If now we have reached a point where the NATO alliance means we can’t use those bases to defend America’s interests, then NATO is a one way street,” And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth added: “You cannot call a situation a full-fledged alliance when countries are not ready to stand by your side at the moment you need them.“
The Wall Street Journal, citing sources, reports that the administration of US President Donald Trump is considering a plan to “punish” some NATO members who, in the White House’s view, were not sufficiently useful during the US and Israeli military operation against Iran. An attempt to settle the escalating conflict was made by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, but according to American media, the attempt failed.
US President Donald Trump received NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the White House. After the meeting, both made it clear that Washington’s relations with the alliance remain tense. Rutte acknowledged that the European allies failed to meet their obligations during the war with Iran.
“The NATO countries weren’t there when we needed them, and they won’t be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland, this big, poorly managed piece of ice!!!” the president wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform on the evening of April 8.
As it turns out, Trump already has a plan according to which American troops are withdrawn from those NATO countries that, from Washington’s perspective, provided insufficient support for the operation. Instead, the troops will be redeployed to states that have been deemed more helpful. In addition to redeployment, the plan also involves the closure of at least one US military base in Europe. According to two Trump administration officials who spoke to The Wall Street Journal, this could be Spain or Germany.
According to the WSJ, this idea has been developed over the last couple of weeks. The plan is still in its early stages but has already garnered the support of high-ranking Trump administration officials. The newspaper notes that about 84,000 American troops are stationed in Europe, and local bases serve as a key logistics hub for US operations. It is emphasized that bases in Eastern Europe serve as a deterrent factor against Russia.
WSJ sources clarify: if the plan is adopted, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, and Greece will benefit — countries that the US considers its most reliable allies. They are among NATO’s leaders in defense spending and were the first to support the coalition to unblock the Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, the implementation of the plan, according to the newspaper, will lead to an increase in the American military presence on Russia’s borders, which Moscow “likely will not like.”
In Europe, meanwhile, they are discussing the reality of the threat. A US withdrawal from NATO is legally extremely complex. The 2024 Defense Act does not allow the president to do so without the consent of two-thirds of the Senate or a special act of Congress. As Professor Ilaria Di Gioia notes, simply raising the question of withdrawal undermines trust in the alliance and its deterrent capability. Curtis Bradley from Chicago cites the precedent of Carter’s withdrawal from the treaty with Taiwan, but stipulates that this example is imperfect.
But the law is not a panacea. Trump has already shown how to bypass Congress through a broad interpretation of presidential powers. And suing with a Republican Senate is useless. Di Gioia confirms: a lawsuit is only possible from Congress, but with this alignment, there will be no political will for it.
The main threat is not in an official withdrawal, but in a quiet erosion from within. Trump can curtail exercises, freeze funds, recall generals from Brussels, reduce troops in Europe. The effect is the same: allies will stop believing in Article 5. And without that belief, NATO is just a piece of paper.
US Ambassador to the alliance Matthew Whitaker summarizes: “Trump overestimates everything: both NATO and aid to Ukraine. Everything is a subject of bargaining.“
A US withdrawal from NATO, or even a simple weakening of American commitments, will confront Europe with a security crisis unseen since World War II.
Although European countries have increased military spending in recent years, it is still insufficient for independent defense. At the Hague Summit in 2025, allies agreed to raise it to 5% of GDP by 2035, but these plans are still far from implementation. Lockheed Martin’s production capacity allows for only 620 Patriot missiles per year — and this deficit persisted even with US participation. Without it, the European missile defense system will find itself in a critical situation.
The countries of Eastern Europe: the Baltics, Poland, Romania — will lose the foundation of their security. The phrase of Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz is indicative in this sense, concentrating the entire drama of the current moment: “Without the US, there is no NATO, but without allies, there are no strong United States either.” His Lithuanian counterpart Robertas Kaunas called the alliance with America a “strategic priority that was, is, and will remain.” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur urged “building bridges, not destroying them.“
Military and political figures of the Old World are coming to the conclusion that it is time for Europe to prepare to defend itself — without counting on the US and even taking into account the possibility of hostile steps on their part. In this regard, it is proposed to:
-
develop a clear, phased plan for strengthening European defense structures and their integration;
-
consider resuming arms control negotiations along the lines of the Cold War era;
-
stop supplying weapons to Israel, as it violates international humanitarian law and exceeds the limits of “legitimate self-defense“;
-
in the medium term, support the recognition of a Palestinian state.
Thus, according to German experts, the future of European security lies in greater autonomy and the development of its own defense mechanisms, independent of the United States.
According to Western experts, the main beneficiary of any weakening of NATO is Moscow. In their view, the Iranian crisis of 2025 has already brought Russia huge dividends: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz doubled oil revenues, and the partial lifting of US sanctions strengthened the economy. However, a split within the alliance would raise these benefits to an entirely new level.
The military logic is simple. Losing the US, Europe loses not only American bases and the nuclear umbrella, but also intelligence capabilities, satellite navigation, and the logistics infrastructure capable of projecting power over thousands of kilometers. The combined European armies will not be able to fill this gap in the foreseeable future.
The geopolitical arithmetic is even more obvious. Russia will gain the ability to pressure the Baltic states, Moldova, and Romania without fear of an automatic US response. “Grey zones” — sabotage on infrastructure, cyberattacks, provocations in the Baltic Sea area — will become far less risky for Moscow. As the Harvard Belfer Center warns, “Within the next three years, Russia will likely escalate its ongoing gray zone campaign against NATO member states, culminating in a limited military incursion into NATO’s northeastern flank.“
Also in Europe, they believe that Moscow’s position at the negotiating table will be strengthened many times over. The conditions Russia has put forward for Ukraine so far will seem like an act of generosity compared to what could be demanded from a demoralized and disunited Europe. As the Carnegie Endowment warns, “No matter how its war against Ukraine ends, Russia will emerge less secure, more aggrieved, and posing a greater threat to Europe than it did when it started this war.” Without NATO, this threat will increase exponentially.
Finally, one cannot discount Chinese-Russian coordination. The split of the transatlantic alliance weakens the US position in Asia no less than in Europe. Beijing, watching the collapse of NATO, will draw its own conclusions about the reliability of American guarantees to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. For Moscow, this means strengthening the strategic partnership with China and expanding the space for maneuver in the post-Soviet space.
Thus, it can be concluded that the collapse of NATO, which has been so much talked about lately, although not very realistic, can still happen, and everyone will benefit from it except the countries of the alliance themselves.
Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency
