What about NATO?

Since the end of the Second World War, NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) has been the cornerstone of Western security, standing as a bulwark against the expansion of authoritarian regimes and ensuring a balance of power that has largely kept Europe stable. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has long sought to dismantle NATO, viewing it as the primary obstacle to his broader geopolitical ambitions. This has placed NATO at the center of global strategic tensions, as the alliance serves as a military and political counterbalance to Russian expansionism. Meanwhile, former U.S. President Donald Trump has, either intentionally or inadvertently, advanced policies and rhetoric that weaken NATO, creating openings that directly benefit Putin’s long-term objectives.

What Does Putin Want?

Vladimir Putin’s goals can be understood through the lens of Russian imperial history and his own worldview. He has repeatedly described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century, a sentiment that reveals his deep longing for Russia to reclaim its influence over former Soviet territories and the broader European sphere.

At the heart of Putin’s strategy is the desire to reassert Russian dominance by undermining the Western institutions that emerged after the Cold War. NATO is at the top of that list. By weakening NATO, Putin can pursue his objectives with less resistance, gradually reclaiming influence over Eastern Europe, weakening Western unity, and reshaping the global order to favor authoritarianism over democracy.

Putin’s ambitions have been evident through Russia’s military interventions, cyber warfare, and disinformation campaigns. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, seizing control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, violating international law and sparking a crisis that continues to this day. In 2022, Putin escalated his aggression by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, an act that demonstrated his determination to dismantle Ukrainian sovereignty and bring it back under Russian control.

Beyond military action, Putin has also relied on hybrid warfare—spreading disinformation, interfering in elections, and leveraging economic dependency—to weaken Western resolve. His long-term goal is clear: a fractured NATO, an isolated and weakened European Union, and a diminished United States presence in global affairs. With these obstacles removed, Russia can exert greater influence over its former Soviet neighbors and beyond.

What is NATO and Why Does It Matter?

NATO was founded in 1949 as a collective defense alliance designed to prevent the resurgence of fascism in Europe and, later, to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The principle of collective defense, enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This principle has deterred direct military aggression against NATO countries for decades, ensuring that Europe remains largely peaceful and democratic.

The alliance serves not only as a military organization but also as a political coalition that fosters cooperation among its members. NATO has played a critical role in various conflicts, from peacekeeping missions in the Balkans to combating terrorism after the September 11 attacks. Its expansion to include former Soviet satellite states, such as Poland, the Baltic nations, and Romania, has been viewed by Russia as an existential threat, despite these countries voluntarily joining NATO to escape Russian dominance.

Putin’s fear is that a strong NATO prevents him from exerting influence over these nations. Countries like Ukraine and Georgia have expressed interest in joining NATO, which Putin views as a red line. His invasion of Ukraine was, in part, an effort to ensure that Ukraine remains in Russia’s sphere of influence and does not integrate with Western alliances.

A world without NATO, or a weakened NATO, would allow Russia to engage in military aggression with impunity. It would create a power vacuum in Europe, leaving smaller nations vulnerable to coercion, cyber attacks, and outright military force. Without NATO, Putin’s vision of a Russian-dominated Eastern Europe would become a reality. This scenario is further complicated by the U.S. interest in Ukraine’s natural resources, including its vast reserves of lithium and other critical minerals, which are vital to global energy transitions and technology industries. While Ukraine faces abandonment without NATO protections, there remains significant Western interest in securing its mineral wealth, reflecting a stark contrast between geopolitical neglect and economic opportunism.

Donald Trump’s Role in Weakening NATO

Donald Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, with an emphasis on economic nationalism and a transactional approach to international alliances. While Trump did not explicitly seek to dismantle NATO, his rhetoric and actions have significantly weakened it, playing into Putin’s broader goals.

From the start of his presidency, Trump was openly hostile toward NATO, calling it “obsolete” and repeatedly questioning the value of U.S. commitments to the alliance. He pressured NATO members to increase their defense spending, which was a legitimate concern, but did so in a manner that alienated allies and cast doubt on American reliability. By suggesting that the U.S. might not defend NATO members who did not meet spending targets, Trump undermined the credibility of NATO’s collective defense principle, which is its most critical function.

Trump also frequently attacked key U.S. allies while simultaneously praising Putin. He downplayed Russian election interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, infamously siding with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies during a press conference in Helsinki. This sent a clear signal that the U.S. might not be fully committed to opposing Russian aggression.

One of Trump’s most damaging policies was his repeated threats to withdraw the United States from NATO. While he never followed through, even the suggestion weakened the alliance by casting uncertainty over its future. European leaders were forced to consider the possibility of a NATO without U.S. backing, which played into Putin’s strategy of driving a wedge between Western allies.

Trump’s economic policies also benefited Russia by weakening transatlantic unity. His trade wars with the European Union and tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods damaged relationships with NATO’s core members. These economic tensions made it harder for NATO allies to present a unified front against Russia’s geopolitical maneuvers.

Even after leaving office, Trump continues to undermine NATO through his public statements and political influence. His isolationist rhetoric fuels a movement within the U.S. that views NATO as a burden rather than an asset. If he returns to office in 2024, the likelihood of further NATO weakening—or even a U.S. withdrawal—remains high. This would be an extraordinary victory for Putin, who has long sought to see NATO collapse from within.

The Larger Geopolitical Picture

The conflict over NATO’s future is not just about Europe—it is about the balance of power in the world. NATO represents a global commitment to democratic values, collective security, and economic stability. Its weakening would create a geopolitical environment where authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China, have far greater influence.

China, in particular, is watching how the West responds to Russian aggression. If NATO fractures, China could be emboldened to take military action against Taiwan, knowing that Western alliances are unreliable. Other authoritarian regimes might follow suit, leading to a world where military force is increasingly used to settle disputes.

Without NATO, the United States would also find itself in a weaker position. The U.S. benefits from NATO by having strong, stable allies that share the burden of global security. If NATO crumbles, the U.S. would have to invest even more in its own military, while facing a world where Russia and China operate with fewer constraints.

Conclusion

The battle over NATO’s future is more than a diplomatic dispute—it is a defining struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. If the United States abdicates its leadership role, the consequences will be felt across the globe, and the beneficiaries will be those who seek to dismantle democracy itself.