This article is the fifth in a five-part MSNBC Daily series, “The Future of NATO.”
With the Trump administration attacking allies, removing troops from European training missions, handing Ukraine’s bargaining chips to Russia and refusing to guarantee European security even as a “backstop” — this article raises five crucial questions about the future of NATO, the U.S., and Europe.
Any assessment of NATO’s future based on a pre-Jan. 20, 2025, calculus is deemed misguided.
The United States is no longer considered a dependable ally of the other countries in the alliance it played a central role in building; it has seemingly switched sides.
The Trump administration has now become openly hostile to those allies, actively working to weaken the trans-Atlantic partnership while heavily supporting the Kremlin and the loose alliance of ethnonationalist, anti-democratic nations it leads.
This is not an exaggeration nor a politically biased assessment.
Just last month, senior U.S. officials suggested the possibility of lifting sanctions against Russia without demanding any concessions in return.
Such positioning has understandably caused an uproar among European leaders who perceive it as a betrayal and, worse, a grave strategic error.
The U.S. has also escalated its trade war aimed primarily at penalizing members of the alliance.
In response, Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, announced that Canada could no longer view the U.S., its neighbor, as a dependable friend.
Simultaneously, tensions have risen with Denmark, another NATO member, following threats from the U.S. to seize Greenland.
These threats were accompanied by a visit from the U.S. vice president and his wife to the island.
In a somewhat smaller but equally alarming development, the U.S. detained a Russian scientist working at Harvard Medical School and appears prepared to send her back to Russia, a fate many fear will be dire given her criticism of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
These actions align with what must be recognized as a clear and multifaceted policy shift away from long-standing allies and principles that have guided the U.S. since World War II, toward a rapid realignment that seems to alter global geopolitics in ways previously unimaginable.
The U.S. has reportedly turned its back on Ukraine, attempting to compel it to end the conflict initiated by Russia.
It has placed demands on Ukraine while making nearly no demands on Russia.
The U.S. has engaged in disputes with Ukraine while dispatching emissaries to flatter Putin.
The United States is no longer seen as a reliable ally by other countries in NATO.
Consequently, several U.S. agencies and initiatives established to defend against Russia or to prepare for future conflicts with Russia have been dismantled or severely weakened.
This includes standing down on cyber defenses and operations targeting Russia, shutting down the program designed to protect against Russian election interference, and halting efforts to track and prosecute wrongdoing by Russian oligarchs.
Moreover, high-level national security positions have been filled with Russia apologists and individuals spreading Russian propaganda.
Incompetent individuals have taken up critical national security roles, fundamentally altering the tone and framing of U.S.-Russia relations compared to any previous government since 1945.
Allies now confront threats, hostility, trade wars, and assertions from the U.S. that it won’t defend them unless they contribute more to defense.
There is a general sense of lack of solidarity with the U.S. and, recently, contempt from U.S. officials concerning what they perceive as European free-riding.
Given the scale and consistency of these shifts in tone, policy, and action, U.S. allies must come to terms with the reality that a profound change has occurred, as articulated recently by Canada’s Carney.
This emerging understanding will demand significant alterations in European doctrine and strategy.
Talk of Europe needing to defend itself and develop its independent policies regarding Ukraine is already surfacing.
Should such a shift occur earnestly, it is sure to produce unintended consequences for the United States.
Initial indications of this shift can be observed as nations begin questioning whether they should continue procuring U.S. weapon systems.
There is emerging fear that an unreliable or even adversarial U.S. might fail to honor contracts or provide essential parts or critical system upgrades.
Additionally, some European countries that once felt secure under the protection of U.S. nuclear capabilities are now considering the development of their own nuclear arsenals.
An increase in the number of nuclear-armed states seems inevitable, alongside the accompanying dangers that this proliferation would bring.
Further compounding the situation, a significant geopolitical implication of Trump’s policies is that European nations are amplifying their outreach to China, striving to deepen relationships with this 21st-century superpower.
Aggressive foreign powers like Russia and China will be assessing how much time they have left in the Trump administration, which appears more permissive of their expansionist ambitions.
As we approach 2028, China may seriously contemplate a move against Taiwan, while Russia could entertain further advances against Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, or even the Baltics.
What would previously spark a unified front from NATO may now find only a fragmented response, as NATO’s largest and most powerful member increasingly acts as a nation in name only, led by a president historically skeptical of the alliance and favorably disposed toward its adversaries.
In summary, all previous war-gaming scenarios must be reconsidered.
The world is undeniably more precarious as a result, and as the Trump years draw to a close, it could become even more perilous still.
The pressing question remains: Will the nations of Europe rise to the challenge of defending democracy and open societies?
Or will they succumb to a new corrupt authoritarianism orchestrated by Putin?
European nations must confront these challenges swiftly, as they can no longer look to the U.S. for guarantees.
The shining city on the hill has now transformed into the land of the not-so-free and the home of the not-so-brave.
image source from：https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/nato-trump-future-without-us-support-rcna196986
