Donald Trump’s remarks that “without the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is nothing more than a paper tiger” go beyond a momentary political stance and reveal a deep fissure in the structure of Western security. His criticism of European member states of the alliance and his accusation that they are unable or unwilling to confront crises such as tensions with Iran, in fact, reflects a strategic divergence across the Atlantic; a divergence rooted in differences in interests, priorities, and perceptions of threats.
The key question is whether one can speak of NATO without the United States, or the United States without NATO. In theory, such a scenario is conceivable, but in practice it would entail high costs and far-reaching consequences for the international order. The alliance was formed after World War II in the context of ideological and geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, and from the outset, the United States has played a central role in it, both militarily and in terms of political coordination. The extensive global network of U.S. military bases has served as a practical instrument of this dominance and remains a significant component of Western deterrence.
However, NATO today is no longer the cohesive alliance of the Cold War era. During that period, the existence of a clear and shared threat guaranteed unity within the alliance, but today threats are dispersed, multi-layered, and at times contested among members. Over the past two decades, Europe has faced a series of economic, social, and security crises, from the consequences of the global financial crisis to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shock resulting from the war in Ukraine. These developments have not only strained Europe’s economic capacity but have also made its strategic dependencies, particularly in the energy sector, more visible.
Under such circumstances, the concept of “European strategic autonomy” has gained increasing attention, yet it remains an unfinished project. On the one hand, Europe depends on the U.S. security umbrella, and on the other, it seeks to reduce this dependence. This situation has created a form of structural duality that has prevented the emergence of a coherent and independent security policy. In fact, while Europe possesses the economic and industrial capacity to become an autonomous actor, the absence of a unified political will has kept this potential unrealized.
On the other side, the United States also faces serious challenges. Contrary to simplistic interpretations that equate a reduced role for NATO with a complete decline of U.S. power, Washington’s primary issue is not the loss of power but the erosion of its global legitimacy and acceptance. The United States remains one of the world’s leading military powers, but the use of this power without the support of allies has become more costly and politically difficult. Experiences of military interventions in recent decades and growing mistrust among allies have intensified this trend.
At the same time, other actors are redefining the global order. China, relying on economic instruments, and Russia, with a security-oriented and confrontational approach, are seeking to fill the gaps in the international system. Alliances such as BRICS, although not yet a complete alternative to the Western order, indicate a growing inclination among non-Western countries to reduce dependence on U.S.-led structures.
In this context, Europe appears less as a decisive actor and more as a ground of competition among major powers. On one hand, it faces pressure from the United States to align against China and Russia, and on the other, due to economic and energy dependencies, it cannot fully distance itself from these actors. This situation has made strategic decision-making for European countries complex and at times contradictory.
Therefore, the current crisis of NATO cannot be reduced merely to political disagreements or the sharp statements of leaders. The core issue lies in a crisis in defining a “shared threat” and, consequently, the weakening of strategic cohesion. In the absence of a clear and unified adversary, alliances gradually shift from stable structures to flexible, temporary, and issue-based arrangements.
Ultimately, what is taking shape is neither the immediate collapse of NATO nor the complete isolation of the United States, but rather a gradual transition from a unipolar order to a fluid multipolar one. In this new order, power is no longer limited to military capability; factors such as legitimacy, economics, and technology also play decisive roles in determining the position of states. This transformation places the future of U.S.-Europe relations in an ambiguous yet consequential state, one that could shape the global balance of power in the decades ahead.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
وقتی امپراتوری تنها میشود: ترکهای ناتو و تولد جهان چندقطبی
