What Is the Future of NATO?

Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, April 10

What is the fate of the NATO doctrine “all for one, and one for all”? The American position toward its historic partner, Europe, must be deeply understood—not as a mere divergence in viewpoints, but as something far more profound. Some analysts have gone so far as to describe it as a “rift.” Everything President Trump warned about during his first term—the need for the United States to reduce its financial burden in support of NATO and for Europe to assume unilateral responsibility for its own continental security—has, in essence, been implemented within just two months of what many are calling the second coming of the “Trump era.”

The rift between American and European visions for the Russia-Ukraine war is perhaps the most glaring indicator of a genuine fracture within the long-standing transatlantic alliance. Established in April 1949 as a military alliance to defend the Western capitalist system against the “communist tide” represented by the Soviet Union—first in Europe, then globally—NATO has stood for over seven decades as a pillar of Western unity. But today, a critical question haunts policymakers, strategists, and security experts alike: What is the future of this alliance now that the rift has become unmistakable? How will this divide impact Europe? What are the broader implications for a global order increasingly shaped by rising powers vying with NATO for dominance on the world stage? In short, how resilient is NATO’s historic doctrine—”all for one, and one for all”—in the face of today’s fractured landscape?

So how and why did this rift happen? Before we can answer that pivotal question—one that may determine not just NATO’s future but the world’s—we must revisit a moment just two years ago when, during NATO’s Diamond Jubilee, the alliance released a document titled “Strategic Concept.” This document outlined NATO’s updated strategic objectives, structure, and future direction across vital global regions. At the time, it was widely seen as an effort to breathe new life into the alliance, which had come under growing scrutiny—particularly after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in early 2022. Its release coincided with a heightened state of alert among Western European countries, notably France and Germany, which responded by launching the German National Security Strategy.

These developments reflected a mounting sense of crisis, most candidly expressed by veteran diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger, then president of the Munich Security Conference. At the 2021 conference, Ischinger lamented “the West’s failure as a global model to fulfill its civilizational mission,” referencing the European elite’s sobering conclusion from 2019 that Western Europe’s influence was not just waning, but potentially vanishing altogether. This introspection culminated in Ischinger’s use of the now-famous and complex term “Westlessness” at the 2020 conference—a word that encapsulated the prevailing unease about the West’s diminishing global relevance.

In this climate of deep self-critique, European political and security circles began openly confronting the historical shortcomings of the Western alliance in addressing the two greatest global crises since World War II. For many around the world, this soul-searching symbolized a “historic decline” in the West. The atmosphere of disillusionment was exacerbated by European outrage over what they viewed as “the regrettable developments in the United States,” especially following Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election—a stance that culminated in the storming of the Capitol, an unprecedented attack on the symbolic heart of liberal democracy.

This European disapproval did not go unnoticed. Trump, perceiving the rebuke, responded not only by advocating for reduced US contributions to NATO but also by suggesting a complete withdrawal from the alliance. In doing so, he made his message to Europe unmistakably clear: Take responsibility for your own defense. As a result, many observers argue that the prospect of a formal US exit from NATO is no longer the primary issue. Rather, Trump’s actions have already, in effect, undermined the alliance in its traditional sense.

This shift has forced Western Europe—led by France and Germany—to confront a new geopolitical reality, one that veers toward detaching from its historical reliance on America. Consequently, there is now a growing push to restructure NATO along distinctly European lines, both militarily and in terms of security—a process commonly referred to as the “remilitarization of Europe.” Experts estimate that this transformation, even with full European financial backing and absent US support, will take at least five years to complete.

This brings us to the unresolved questions: What becomes of the American nuclear arsenal currently deployed in Europe under NATO’s aegis? What would be the implications—not only of a US departure, but of a fundamental shift in Washington’s global security strategy? And finally, what sort of world order are we headed toward as a result?

Samir Marcos (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)