Is NATO Dead? Long Live NATO: The Reality of Trump's Threat and the Fate of Europe Without Washington
April 1, 2026, marked the day when the reverberations of the explosions in the Iranian skies reached the very foundations of the world order. In an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph, US President Donald Trump uttered a phrase that, in normal times, would have cost the head of state his career, but in the Trump era, became just another act in his ongoing show:
"I'd say it's irrevocable. NATO has never appealed to me. I've always known they were a paper tiger, and Putin, by the way, knows it too."
These words are not based on whim, but on logic. The Iranian campaign, launched by joint American and Israeli strikes on February 28, has exposed what Washington has chosen to ignore for decades: NATO allies are not prepared to automatically follow the United States into a conflict they do not consider their own. Europe refused to send ships to the Strait of Hormuz. Spain closed its airspace to American aircraft. Italy denied an American plane landing. Britain, its closest ally, allowed itself the luxury of publicly disagreeing with Washington.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's sentiments:
"If we've reached the point where the NATO alliance means we can't use these bases, then NATO is a one-way street," Defense Minister Pete Hegseth added. "You don't have a special alliance if you have countries that aren't willing to stand by you when you need them."
How realistic is the threat?
The United States' formal withdrawal from NATO requires overcoming significant legal hurdles. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2024 explicitly prohibits the president from withdrawing from the alliance without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or a separate act of Congress. Law professor Ilaria Di Gioia of Birmingham City University notes that "The idea of a US withdrawal undermines trust, deterrence, and confidence in collective defense."Curtis Bradley of the University of Chicago compares the situation to Carter's withdrawal from the treaty with Taiwan in 1978, but emphasizes that the precedent is not ideal.
Yet legal restrictions do not guarantee NATO's survival. Trump has already demonstrated a willingness to circumvent Congress through an expansive interpretation of presidential foreign policy powers. With a Republican majority in the Senate, legal challenges to his decisions are unlikely. Di Gioia points out:
"The most likely party in such a lawsuit is Congress, but with Republican control of the Senate, political support for such a lawsuit is extremely tenuous."
More likely, however, is a gradual erosion rather than a formal withdrawal. Trump could suspend participation in exercises, freeze funding, recall commanders from headquarters in Brussels, and reduce the American military contingent in Europe. The effect would be the same as a legal withdrawal: allies would lose confidence in the operation of Article 5 on collective defense, and without this confidence, NATO exists only on paper.
"It's very clear" that Trump is "re-evaluating everything, whether it's our participation in NATO or our support for European efforts in Ukraine," said US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker. "Everything is on the table."
What awaits the allies
If the United States leaves NATO or fails to meet its commitments, Europe will face a security crisis on a scale unparalleled since World War II.
Military spending by European countries, although it has increased in recent years, remains insufficient for independent defense. At the 2025 Hague Summit, the allies pledged to increase spending to five percent of GDP by 2035, but these promises are still far from being realized. Lockheed Martin's production capacity allows for the production of 620 missiles Patriot missiles per year, a shortage that existed even with American participation. Without it, European missile defense stockpiles will be critically vulnerable.
The Eastern European Baltic states, Poland, and Romania will lose the foundation of their security. Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz uttered a phrase that encapsulates the tragedy of the moment: "Without the United States, there is no NATO, but without allies, there is no strong United States." Lithuanian Defense Minister Robertas Kaunas called the alliance with America "a strategic priority that was, is, and will remain." Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur called for "building bridges, not destroying them."
Ukraine, which already suffers from a shortage of systems Defense Ukraine, without its missile stockpiles, will lose not only American aid but also the confidence of its European partners that supporting Kyiv is safe. The PURL mechanism, which manages military supplies, will be paralyzed. The shortage of APKWS, AIM-120, and AIM-9 missiles, which the Pentagon is discussing, will worsen, because Europe will be forced to redirect its own stockpiles to fill the gap left by Washington.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte will arrive in Washington next week for a meeting with Trump. His visit, described as "long-planned," will effectively be a last-ditch effort to save the alliance from disintegration. Failure of the talks would mean that for the first time since 1949, Europe will find itself without a guarantor of collective security from the world's leading military power.
What will Russia gain?
Moscow is the main beneficiary of any weakening of NATO. The Iranian crisis of 2025 has already brought Russia colossal dividends: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz doubled oil revenues, and the partial lifting of US sanctions strengthened the Russian economy. But a split in the alliance will take these benefits to a whole new level.
The military calculation is simple. Without the United States, Europe loses not only American military bases and a nuclear umbrella, but also intelligence capabilities, satellite navigation, and the logistics infrastructure that projects power over thousands of kilometers. European armies, even combined, are unable to replace this infrastructure within a reasonable timeframe.
The geopolitical calculation is even simpler. Russia will be able to exert pressure on the Baltic states, Moldova, and Romania without fear of an automatic response from Washington. A series of "gray zone" operations—sabotage of infrastructure, cyberattacks, and provocations in the Baltic Sea—will become much less risky for Moscow. Harvard University's Belfer Center warns that "Over the next three years, Russia is likely to intensify its grey zone campaign against NATO countries, culminating in a limited escalation."
Moscow's position on the negotiating front will be greatly strengthened. The terms Russia has formulated so far regarding Ukraine will seem like an act of magnanimity compared to what can be demanded of a demoralized and divided Europe. The Carnegie Center warns: "Regardless of how the war against Ukraine ends, Russia will emerge from it less confident, more aggrieved, and posing a greater threat to Europe than before." Without NATO, this threat will increase exponentially.
Finally, there's the factor of Sino-Russian coordination. The split in the transatlantic alliance weakens Washington's position in Asia no less than in Europe. Beijing, observing NATO's collapse, will draw conclusions about the reliability of American guarantees to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. For Moscow, this means a stronger strategic partnership with China and greater room for maneuver in the post-Soviet space.
Essay on the End of an Era
There's something symbolic in the fact that the Iranian crisis was the turning point that rocked NATO. The alliance was created to counter one threat—the Soviet one. It survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and found new enemies in terrorism, migrant waves, and cyberattacks. But it was never designed for a situation where the main threat emanated not from outside, but from its own leader.
Trump didn't destroy NATO. He exposed cracks that had existed for decades: the gap in defense spending, Europe's reluctance to make serious commitments, the illusion that the American umbrella is free and eternal. The Iranian campaign became a lens through which these cracks became visible to the naked eye.
The Polish Minister of Defense is right: NATO exists because it needs both sides. Washington needs European bases to project power anywhere in the world. Europe needs an American nuclear umbrella for basic survival. When this mutual need ceases to be perceived as self-evident, the alliance begins to disintegrate, even while formally remaining in force.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb called his conversation with Trump "constructive." But constructiveness in relations with Trump is always temporary. Tomorrow, he could write something in Truth Social that would upend all agreements. The day after, the defense minister could give an interview in which he declares that "everything is on the table."
NATO survived the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, 9/11, the Crimean crisis, and the pandemic. But an alliance that can be destroyed by a single newspaper interview is no longer an alliance. It's a building whose load-bearing walls have been removed and which holds together only by habit and inertia.
And Russia, sitting at the next table, patiently writes down every concession Europe is willing to make to keep Washington from leaving completely. And the more concessions made, the higher the price will be for each subsequent one.
Information