The moment US commitment to the alliance is perceived as weak, the strategic calculus of Russia and China will change
US President Donald Trump has once again injected volatility into the transatlantic relationship by sharpening his long-standing critique of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In his recent interviews, he has suggested that US withdrawal from the alliance was not merely rhetorical brinkmanship but a policy option “beyond reconsideration.”
His dismissal of NATO as a “paper tiger,” combined with visible frustration at European reluctance to support US naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz and broader logistical efforts during the ongoing Iran crisis, signals both continuity and escalation in his worldview. For Trump, alliances are not sacrosanct - they are instruments to be judged by immediate utility.
This is, in many ways, a familiar refrain. Since his first term, Trump has approached NATO through a transactional lens, persistently arguing that the US shoulders a disproportionate burden while European allies free-ride on American security guarantees.
To be sure, this critique has not been entirely without effect. In the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, European defence spending has risen significantly, with most NATO members moving closer to, or meeting, the 2% of GDP benchmark. Yet, from Trump’s vantage point, these adjustments remain insufficient, particularly when allied support is not forthcoming in theatres that Washington prioritises, such as the current confrontation involving Iran.
What distinguishes the present moment, however, is not merely the reiteration of old grievances but the context in which they are being articulated. The Iran crisis has exposed the limits of alliance cohesion when interests diverge. Several European states have been reluctant to be drawn into a US-led military campaign, reflecting both domestic political constraints and differing threat perceptions.
Several European states have been reluctant to be drawn into a US-led military campaign, reflecting both domestic political constraints and differing threat perceptions.
For Trump, this reluctance reinforces his argument that NATO is conditional in practice, even if it claims to be unconditional in principle. If the alliance is not “automatic” in supporting US objectives, then its foundational logic, in his view, becomes questionable.
Rhetoric of this sort, however, has consequences that extend well beyond the immediate dispute. NATO has been the cornerstone of European security since 1949, with its Article 5 guarantee serving as a powerful deterrent against large-scale conflict. Its credibility, however, rests less on formal commitments than on the perceived reliability of the US as the alliance’s central pillar. When that reliability is openly questioned by the American president, the resulting uncertainty begins to erode deterrence itself.
As French president Emmanuel Macron has warned, such discourse does not merely criticise NATO, it incrementally hollows it out.
Legally, a full US withdrawal from NATO is far from straightforward. Treaty obligations, combined with domestic legislative constraints in Washington, make an abrupt exit unlikely. However, the more plausible - and arguably more destabilising - scenario is a gradual dilution of American commitment. This could take the form of reduced troop deployments, a scaling back of operational integration, or deliberate ambiguity regarding the US nuclear umbrella. Such steps would stop short of
formal withdrawal but would nonetheless achieve a similar effect: the weakening of NATO’s deterrent credibility through uncertainty.
For Europe, the strategic implications are profound. The credibility of Article 5 has always depended disproportionately on US military capabilities, particularly in high-end domains such as intelligence, surveillance, strategic lift, and nuclear deterrence. A wavering American commitment would inevitably invite opportunistic behaviour from Vladimir Putin, who has consistently framed NATO as a hostile encroachment on Russia’s sphere of influence.
In such a scenario, Moscow may be tempted to probe the alliance’s resolve through hybrid operations in the Baltics, intensified pressure on Ukraine, or even limited conventional incursions designed to test the threshold of collective response.
European militaries, despite recent increases in spending, are not yet equipped to compensate for a diminished US role.
A wavering American commitment would inevitably invite opportunistic behaviour from Vladimir Putin, who has consistently framed NATO as a hostile encroachment on Russia’s sphere of influence.
The gap is not merely quantitative but qualitative, particularly in areas that require deep integration and technological sophistication. As a result, the prospect of an unreliable US introduces a degree of vulnerability that cannot be quickly mitigated. It is this asymmetry that makes Trump’s rhetoric so consequential: even without policy change, the perception of disengagement can alter strategic calculations in Moscow.
At the same time, Europe’s response reveals a familiar duality - anxiety coupled with renewed ambition. On one hand, there is palpable concern about the erosion of transatlantic guarantees; on the other, there is a growing recognition of the need for greater strategic autonomy. Initiatives aimed at enhancing European defence cooperation - ranging from joint procurement to the development of rapid-reaction capabilities - are gaining renewed urgency. Leaders in Paris and Berlin, long advocates of a more self-reliant Europe, now find their arguments acquiring broader resonance across the continent.
Yet, the path to autonomy is neither straightforward nor uncontested. European states continue to differ in their threat perceptions, with eastern members prioritising deterrence against Russia while southern states remain more focused on instability in the Mediterranean and North Africa. These divergences complicate efforts to forge a cohesive strategic vision. Moreover, building credible military capabilities requires not just financial investment but also political will, institutional reform, and time - commodities that are often in short supply.
Beyond Europe, the implications of a weakened NATO are equally significant. The erosion of transatlantic cohesion would accelerate the broader shift towards a more fragmented and multipolar international order. China, in particular, would view such fragmentation as an opportunity to expand its strategic influence, both in the Indo-Pacific and in global governance institutions.
A US perceived as retreating from its alliance commitments may find it more difficult to rally partners in other regions, thereby weakening its overall strategic posture.
The erosion of transatlantic cohesion would accelerate the broader shift towards a more fragmented and multipolar international order.
For Washington, the risks are not confined to security alone. The network of alliances that the US has built over decades underpins not just its military reach but also its economic and political influence. Eroding these ties could diminish American leverage in global trade, technology, and diplomacy, gradually constraining its ability to shape international outcomes. In this sense, the costs of a transactional approach to alliances may prove to be far greater than its proponents anticipate.
Ultimately, what is at stake is not merely the future of NATO but the broader logic of collective security that has defined the post-war international order. Trump’s intervention underscores a fundamental tension between a nationalist, interest-driven approach to foreign policy and the enduring value of institutionalised cooperation. While his rhetoric may succeed in pushing Europe towards greater self-reliance - a long-standing American objective - the transition is likely to be fraught with uncertainty and risk.
As NATO navigates this moment of flux, the central question is not simply whether the US will remain within the alliance, but what kind of ally it intends to be. The answer will shape not only the future of European security but also the contours of global order in the decades to come.
This commentary originally appeared in Moneycontrol.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Professor Harsh V. Pant is Vice President at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. He is a Professor of International Relations with King's India Institute at ...
Read More +
PREV
