NATO has undergone rapid and possibly lasting transformations due to the combined impact of the President and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s conflict in Ukraine.
Last month, after most of NATO’s 32 members committed to boosting defense spending to 5% of their respective GDPs, Trump garnered attention by significantly altering his rhetoric, asserting that the alliance was no longer a “rip-off.” Nevertheless, his earlier assertive posture clearly influenced the security organization’s operations.
Peter Doran, an expert specializing in Russia, Ukraine, and transatlantic relations, and an adjunct senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated, “Trump has altered the dynamic.” He added, “Then there’s Vladimir Putin, who has evidently made Europeans aware of the threat Russia poses to them.”
During his initial term, Trump vocalized his displeasure that merely five nations were fulfilling their commitments to dedicate 2% of their GDP to defense. These critiques gained prominence again when he resumed campaigning for the 2024 election, against the backdrop of Russia’s conflict in Ukraine.
Concerns were widespread about whether Trump would maintain substantial U.S. backing for , and if Washington would continue to be a dependable European ally facing a militarily prepared Russia.
While more NATO countries increased their defense spending after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, this occurred even before Trump’s return to the White House.
Trump not only proposed to and reassign them to Asian locations, but he also hinted that he might not defend a NATO member if attacked. He famously remarked at a February 2024 campaign event, “If you don’t pay your bills, you receive no protection. It’s straightforward.”
Regarding the possibility of a Russian assault on a NATO member, he declared, “I would encourage them to do whatever they please.”
However, his assertive language seemingly produced outcomes.
Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary-General, who maintains a positive rapport with Trump, humorously alluded to Trump’s unconventional diplomatic style in global politics. This was especially notable after Trump used strong language in an impassioned discourse concerning a failure in the Iran-Israel ceasefire at last month’s summit, remarking, “Daddy sometimes needs to employ forceful words.”
Peter Rough, a senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute’s Center on Europe and Eurasia, informed Digital, “Donald Trump is quite different from Joe Biden.” He continued, “Joe Biden embraced NATO allies so tightly, almost overwhelming them with affection, which, I believe, led them to become somewhat complacent.
He further elaborated, “Conversely, Donald Trump subjects the allies to precisely enough adversarial pressure to prompt greater action, yet not so much as to provoke a Russian assault. I consider that the ‘art of the deal,’ if you will.”
However, while experts concur that NATO nations probably wouldn’t have further increased their defense expenditures without Trump’s influence, the Russian contribution to revitalizing NATO remains significant.
Rough commented, “Had Vladimir Putin and the Russians pursued engagement with Europe and opted for a more democratic path in the post-Cold War era, the NATO Alliance might not exist today.” He added, “Yet, Putin has provided NATO with a tangible purpose, and President Trump has played his role by… coaxing, pressuring, and encouraging the allies.”
Nevertheless, not everyone is certain that the transformations currently affecting are lasting.
Mike Ryan, formerly the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, informed Digital that he doesn’t necessarily think the Trump and Putin administrations have caused irreversible changes to the NATO alliance. However, he noted, “Both have invigorated and concentrated the allies.”
He further commented, “But that is typical for NATO when facing an external crisis.”
With Trump’s potential re-election, there was growing apprehension regarding how the U.S. would be viewed by its allies—whether it would still be seen as a reliable partner or if it was reverting to attitudes not observed since the period preceding World War II.
Doran contended, “The response is unequivocally no.” He elaborated, “If anything, Trump returned and replicated his actions from his initial administration, which was to remind Europeans of their consistent under-expenditure on defense.
He added, “Indeed, Trump has not changed whatsoever. It is the Europeans’ recognition that they must increase spending, and they have responded to that challenge, which is highly encouraging.”
Nevertheless, Rough advised that a balance must be maintained when exerting such significant pressure on U.S. allies.
He stated, “Donald Trump has generated considerable apprehension in Europe, and it is crucial to transform that apprehension into policy successes.” He continued, “If this apprehension is allowed to persist, intensify, or worsen, then some European nations might advocate more strongly for so-called strategic autonomy, or a divergence from the U.S.”
Rough concluded, “However, if that apprehension translates into… tangible policy achievements and collaborations with Europe, then I believe it can be a beneficial development.”