RIP, NATO? Tensions between the United States and its European allies have become so nasty and vitriolic that they can no longer be ignored or even minimized.
Europe Missed A Changing America
Both the depth and breadth of the disputes are unprecedented. Even the sometime bitter policy quarrels that marked Donald Trump’s first administration pale by comparison to what has taken place during the initial weeks of his second term.
The attitude on the part of European leaders is noticeably different this time around as well. The dominant view throughout NATO when Trump entered the White House in 2017, seemed to be that he constituted a temporary ideological aberration in America’s political system.
Consequently, mature, sensible European governments believed that while it might be necessary to make a few concessions to placate the volatile occupant of the oval office, especially on such issues as greater financial burden-sharing within NATO, the transatlantic relationship remained basically sound.
Joe Biden’s defeat of Trump in the 2020 presidential election appeared to validate that prediction and vindicate a strategy of patience. There were pervasive demonstrations of relief among Europe’s political elites that the United States had returned to “normal.” Those elites were confident that the transatlantic status quo was secure, and that they could resume pursuing the same policies of armed globalism that had dominated the scene since the end of World War II.
Yet there was an undercurrent of uneasiness, especially as Trump did not fade into political oblivion, but instead showed strong signs of staging a comeback. His decisive victory in America’s 2024 presidential election confirmed that transatlantic tensions would not be a brief, passing phenomenon.
By focusing so intently on Trump as the cause of policy divisions between the United States and Europe, establishment elites on both sides of the Atlantic ignored other important factors—and they continue to do so.
Time to Break Up NATO?
The bottom line is that while the United States and Europe share important interests and goals, those interests and goals are far from being congruent. NATO’s European members have been far more united and intense in their support for Ukraine as Kyiv continues to wage its war against Russia. Attitudes toward the war are noticeably more divided and conditional in the United States. That is especially true among Trump and his supporters.
Whereas European leaders insist that they cannot support a peace accord that includes forcing Kyiv to relinquish Crimea and other territories, Americans give higher priority to bringing an end to the fighting even if that requires Kyiv to lose land and abandon the goal of joining NATO. That policy gap between the United States and its NATO allies is becoming a chasm.
There are major disagreements about policy toward regions other than Europe. The Unites States has been totally supportive of Israel’s recent actions, especially its conduct in Gaza, whereas the European countries are noticeably divided. Intra-alliance feuding over that ugly episode is not likely to end anytime soon.
The United States has adopted a noticeably tougher line toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC) regarding both economic and security issues. The European powers are not receptive to Washington’s new enthusiasm for tariffs.
Moreover, their negative attitude is not just because the Europeans themselves are negatively impacted. They also seem uneasy because China is such a high-priority target for Washington, creating the prospect of a major spike in global tensions involving the world’s two largest economies.
The transatlantic policy gap is even larger with respect to security issues toward China. European leaders obviously do not want to antagonize their longtime American protector, but they also don’t want to alienate the PRC. Washington, on the other hand, is re-emphasizing its security commitment to friendly East Asian clients, especially Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and most controversial of all, Taiwan. Washington’s hardline stance toward Beijing began even before Trump took office in 2017, and it continued largely unabated throughout Biden’s presidency. Getting in the middle of a dust up between the PRC and the United States has all the earmarks of a no win situation for Europe. Conversely, East Asia is fast becoming a more important economic and security theater than Europe for the United States.
A final source of transatlantic disunity is the growing discord about what constitutes genuine democracy in the 21st century. Vice President J. D. Vance put the spotlight on that issue during his speech to the Munich Security Conference, when he contended that some European allies were rigging their political systems to disqualify right-wing parties and candidates. Indeed, governing elites in both Britain and the European Union (EU) now embrace what might be termed conditional or “politically correct” democracy.
A large and widening gap has opened between the U.S. version of democracy, especially given the emergence of Donald Trump’s conservative, populist administration, and the version that most of Washington’s European allies embrace. Each side seems to regard the other as a cynical, faux democracy, and that does not bode well for continued transatlantic unity.
Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic need to consider whether the time has come to terminate NATO and give it a long overdue retirement party. The alliance was created when a powerful totalitarian state posed a major threat to a weakened, demoralized, democratic Europe.
A Norwegian Leopard 2A4 main battle tank during Iron Wolf II in Lithuania. It involves 2,300 troops from 12 NATO Allies. The Lithuanian-led exercise is helping to train the NATO Battlegroup which consists of soldiers from Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. Shot in Rukla, Lithuania.
That era bears no resemblance to today’s world. The European Union and Great Britain combined have a larger population and a larger economy than the United States. That combination of countries has a collective economy more than 10 times larger than Russia’s, and it can massively outspend Russia to build whatever defense force they deem necessary.
Time For a New Way of Thinking on Transatlantic Relations
A transatlantic divorce is not only feasible, but given the growing divisions on policy issues and the overall concept of democracy, it is entirely appropriate. The alliance is akin to a long marriage that has grown stale and ever colder.
Let’s part as friends with an amicable separation rather than as angry, disillusioned partners who now are beginning to hate each other.
About the Author: Ted Galen Carpenter
Ted Galen Carpenter, is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and a contributing editor at 19FortyFive. He is the author of 13 books and more than 1,300 articles on national security, international affairs, and civil liberties. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).
