Can NATO Survive Without the United States?
Since its creation in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has always been far more than a simple military alliance. Presented as a defensive pact designed to protect Western Europe against the communist bloc led by the Soviet Union, NATO quickly became the central pillar of American power on the European continent.
Throughout the Cold War, the existence of the Soviet Union justified the massive deployment of American forces across Europe. Washington stationed tens of thousands of troops, military bases, missiles, and strategic infrastructure in order to contain Moscow. But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a fundamental question emerged: why should NATO continue to exist after the disappearance of its main adversary?
Instead of disappearing, the Atlantic Alliance strengthened itself and expanded eastward. New states joined the organization, while NATO gradually intervened far beyond its original mission, notably in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya. The organization thus became a major instrument of Western power projection under American leadership.
Today, however, this security architecture is going through one of its deepest internal crises. America’s European allies fear a new reduction of the U.S. military presence on the continent under the administration of Donald Trump. After the announcement of the withdrawal of 5,000 American troops stationed in Germany, several NATO diplomats now fear additional reductions in Italy and Spain.
These concerns above all reveal a reality that had long been concealed: Europe’s structural dependence on American military power. The figures clearly illustrate this dependence. According to Pentagon data, more than 36,000 American troops were still deployed in Germany in December 2025, in addition to around 1,500 reservists and 11,500 civilian employees. Italy hosts approximately 15,400 American military personnel, including 12,700 regular soldiers. In Spain, nearly 4,330 American troops remain stationed, including 3,800 regular forces personnel. In total, around 85,000 American troops are still deployed across Europe.
These forces do not merely represent a symbolic presence. They constitute NATO’s operational core. The United States provides most of the Alliance’s logistical capabilities, satellite intelligence, nuclear systems, strategic aviation, and integrated military command. Without Washington, NATO would immediately lose a large part of its global intervention capacity.
But behind the current tensions lie increasingly deep political divergences between the United States and several European capitals. The first fracture concerns the war in Ukraine. For several months, the United States has gradually appeared to move toward a negotiation-based approach with Russia. A significant part of the American establishment now believes that the conflict cannot be resolved solely through military escalation and that some form of compromise with Moscow will eventually be necessary. The war has become particularly costly for the West. This orientation is especially visible in Donald Trump’s speeches, as he regularly criticizes the scale of American financial and military involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.
By contrast, a large number of European leaders continue to view the war primarily as a Russian aggression against the European order. For several European Union governments, reducing support for Kyiv would amount to permanently weakening the continent’s security. This strategic divergence is creating growing discomfort within NATO, because the Alliance theoretically depends on a shared vision of international threats.
The second fracture emerged around the war against Iran. Contrary to Washington’s expectations, several European allies refused to directly support American military operations. Spain notably closed its airspace to American aircraft involved in the strikes against Iran on March 30, 2026. For its part, Italy did not authorize the landing of American bombers in Sicily as part of these operations.
These decisions deeply irritated Donald Trump and several Pentagon officials. Washington believes that some European allies benefit from American protection while refusing to support the United States when its own strategic interests are at stake. This situation marks an important rupture in the recent history of the Atlantic Alliance. For decades, despite occasional disagreements, Europeans generally followed America’s major strategic orientations. Today, geopolitical interests are beginning to diverge far more openly.
Behind these tensions also lies a broader transformation of American foreign policy. The United States would still remain the world’s leading military power, but its strategic priorities are gradually shifting toward Asia and the rivalry with China. In this context, part of the American political class believes that Europe must now assume a greater share of the cost of its own defense.
For the European Union, this evolution constitutes a major strategic shock. Since 1945, the continent’s security has essentially relied on the American military umbrella. This dependence allowed European states to devote more resources to their economic and social development. But it also places them today in a situation of political vulnerability.
The idea of an autonomous European defense therefore regularly returns to political debates. Yet despite repeated rhetoric about “strategic autonomy,” Europeans remain deeply divided. National interests diverge, military capabilities are unequal, and European defense industries remain heavily dependent on American technologies.
NATO could probably continue to exist institutionally even in the event of a partial American withdrawal. But the real question lies elsewhere: can the Alliance maintain its strategic credibility without American power?
Because in reality, NATO has never been an alliance of equal partners. It has always been structured around American military dominance. If Washington were to significantly reduce its commitment, Europe would be forced to make a historic choice: finally build genuine strategic autonomy or accept a gradual weakening of its geopolitical influence in an increasingly multipolar world.
Commentaires (0)
Laisser un commentaire