A NATO Without the US Could Trigger a Global Security Crisis
Donald Trump, never one to let a global crisis go unaddressed — or uncapitalized — urged Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday to broker an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine.
This bold move, pitched as part of his presidential transition efforts (even though the paint’s still drying on his “President-elect” banner), comes weeks before his inauguration. “Zelenskyy and Ukraine would like to make a deal and stop the madness,” Trump announced on social media, referencing Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Sure, Don. Because if anyone can talk sense into Putin, it’s you.
In an NBC “Meet the Press” interview airing the same day, Trump floated his openness to cutting military aid to Ukraine and — wait for it — pulling the US out of NATO.
These bombshells have left Ukraine, NATO allies, and a good portion of America’s national security establishment clutching their pearls.
When asked if he was already working to end the nearly three-year-old Ukraine war, Trump answered, “I am.” But mum’s the word on whether he’s chatted with Putin post-election. “I don’t want to impede negotiations,” he said, leaving everyone guessing if he was playing diplomat or just playing coy.
Trump’s call for an immediate truce stands in stark contrast to the Biden administration’s more cautious stance — and was met with a reserved response from Zelenskyy. Over the weekend, Trump attended a Paris gathering with French and Ukrainian leaders, ostensibly to celebrate Notre Dame’s restoration.
The irony of discussing peace amid a backdrop of fire-ravaged ruins? Not lost on me. His entourage, notably lacking Ukraine experts, probably didn’t help seal the deal.
On Truth Social, (I’m not linking to it here because f**k Truth Social) Trump typed up his solution: “Immediate ceasefire and negotiations should begin. I know Vladimir well. This is his time to act. China can help. The World is waiting!”
Yes, because nothing screams “credible peace broker” like tossing China into the mix.
Zelenskyy described his discussions with Trump, mediated by French President Emmanuel Macron, as “constructive” but carefully avoided any ringing endorsements. He emphasized that peace must be both “just and robust,” ensuring Russia doesn’t treat it like a halftime break before resuming hostilities.
Meanwhile, back in the Kremlin…
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov repeated Moscow’s usual refrain: they’re open to talks, provided Kyiv stops being so impossible — Peskov then stomped his foot down and made a pouty face.
He was referring to a Ukrainian decree declaring negotiations with Putin a non-starter — a decree drafted after Russia’s not-so-subtle annexation of FOUR Ukrainian regions.
Trump’s former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster also weighed in, warning against any “flawed ideas” about placating Putin. His advice? Arm Ukraine to the teeth and let Putin know he’s losing. Straightforward and spicy. I like it! I’m Wes O’Donnell and I endorse this message.
Trump hinted that the US’s commitment to NATO isn’t a given. “If they’re paying their bills and treating us fairly, I’d stay,” he said. But if not? “Absolutely,” he’d consider pulling out.
The same cavalier attitude surfaced regarding military aid to Ukraine, with Trump acknowledging potential cuts: “Possibly.”
This stance contrasts starkly with President Joe Biden’s robust support for Ukraine. Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced nearly $1 billion in additional military aid to Kyiv. Trump, meanwhile, seems ready to trade strategic alliances for faster deals — likely hoping for an “Art of the Deal” sequel titled “The Art of Peace.”
Here’s why the US leaving NATO would be a monumental disaster.
I used to look at the list of NATO countries in Europe with pride at the incredible lethality of many European nations’ militaries.
Poland has a particularly lethal military and just might be the next great European power. France has nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and other nations, like Germany, Finland, and Sweden have some of the most high-tech defense contractors on the planet like Rheinmetal, SAAB, BAE, and others.
If you were to combine the tanks, artillery, fighter jets, and troops of all the NATO countries and compare them to Russia and Belarus, NATO would outnumber Russia 10 to 1!
Just France (222), Poland (over 1,000), and Germany (300) have more modern tanks combined than Russia can field, especially after Ukraine gave Russia the a$$ whooping of the century with Saint Javelin. That’s not counting all the other NATO members.
So, what’s the problem? Even without the US, it appears, on paper at least, that NATO is a conventional military powerhouse!
Not so fast, my friends.
NATO needs the US more than you know.
The US possesses the sheer size and capacity to maintain specialized units, such as electronic warfare squadrons, deep-fire units, and core-level logistics. NATO armies, due to their smaller sizes, often focus on maintaining multi-role forces, sacrificing specialization.
The US also has unique assets like ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance), airborne command and control, and specialized airstrike capabilities, which other NATO armies cannot replicate at the same scale or sophistication.
For instance, NATO indeed has AWACS jets (the aging E-3A Sentry to be replaced with the E-7 Wedgetail) for ISR. But we’re talking about the difference between six E-7s in NATO, versus the US’ 30+ E-3 Sentries (also soon to be E-7s).
What’s more, the US fields highly advanced systems like THAAD and SM-3 for missile defense. These are crucial for intercepting high-speed threats, such as hypersonic missiles, which NATO countries cannot deploy widely.
Also, the US provides the backbone for NATO’s command and control systems. This includes strategic coordination, targeting capabilities, and decision-making frameworks that enable the alliance to function cohesively during operations.
Many NATO operations rely on US-provided communications networks, satellite intelligence, and cybersecurity measures to maintain operational security and situational awareness.
This feeds into the US’ vast intelligence network, including satellite surveillance and SIGINT (signals intelligence), providing NATO with insights that European nations cannot independently generate. US ISR capabilities enable NATO to act quickly on threats, bridging gaps in Europe’s intelligence collection and analysis systems.
Let’s talk about research and logistics…
The US defense budget dwarfs those of all other NATO members combined, allowing it to fund advanced research, procurement, and sustainment of cutting-edge technology.
The US provides much of NATO’s logistical framework, including airlift, sealift, and pre-positioned equipment, ensuring rapid deployment and resupply capabilities. The removal of this capability alone would cripple NATO’s freedom of movement. The US is very good at moving stuff around the globe.
The US nuclear arsenal serves as a primary deterrent against major adversaries like Russia, a role European nations cannot fulfill independently — except for France and the UK.
Then there’s the ability of the US to project power anywhere in the world. US forces stationed worldwide enhance NATO’s ability to respond to threats quickly, deterring aggression by demonstrating capability and resolve.
Technologically, the US leads in developing cutting-edge military technologies, from hypersonics to advanced AI for defense applications, which often get integrated into NATO strategies.
Also, the US is no stranger to warfighting.
Geez, we’ve been fighting a war somewhere almost constantly since the early 1900s. It reminds me of this line in a song from Canadian folk singer Loreena McKennitt where she says we’ve experienced, “months of peace and years of war.” US forces bring decades of experience in large-scale, multi-domain operations, which many NATO nations lack due to their smaller or more regionally focused militaries.
NATO’s collective strength lies in the bulk of European forces combined with the US’s capability enablers. Without US specialized capabilities, NATO would struggle to function as an integrated, high-performance military alliance.
While there is momentum for European strategic autonomy, the time, cost, and political will required to match US capabilities simply doesn’t exist. Many European nations are increasing defense spending, but they remain years, or even decades, away from bridging the gap in technology, integration, and scale.
The US acts as NATO’s backbone by supplying high-end, specialized capabilities that other members cannot individually achieve. Without US support, NATO’s ability to deter and respond to threats, particularly those posed by Russia or other near-peer adversaries, would be significantly, and I mean significantly, diminished.
While Trump teases ceasefires, Russian forces continue advancing in eastern Ukraine, just recently claiming the village of Blahodatne.
For now, Trump’s overtures have injected a heavy dose of unpredictability into an already volatile conflict.
Whether his approach represents bold statesmanship or dangerous naiveté depends on which side of the political aisle you’re standing on — or how much popcorn you’ve got left.
I’m going to go with dangerous naiveté.
If Trump does indeed pull the US out of NATO, the ensuing European chaos would be downright shocking. Not to mention the obvious emboldening of an already emboldened Putin.
Europe would be weaker.
The US would be weaker.
And those who would oppress individual liberties, read: Russia and China, would be stronger.
Let’s honor our commitments to our allies because the way the world seems to be heading right now, we all need strong alliances more than ever.
Слава Україні!
So effing depressing. Arm Ukraine to the teeth, well past due. Remove all restrictions on targets or km into Russia. Add more economic sanctions and enforce such!!!!!! Russia must lose. No Ukrainian territories given to Russia. Recognize what Ukraine has developed and earned for NATO. Fuck Russia.
What would be the effect on the US military industrial sector if the US pulls out of NATO? An effective transfer from the US taxpayer to the Defence industry would be significantly reduced. The NATO (minus US) alliance could buy material privately from US sources at first, but they would be incentivized to find alternatives in the longer run.
When the US “gives” money for weapons to Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan, those countries must spend the money in the US — thus propping up the private Defence industry and US aggregate demand. (Trump and the GOP Congress also want to cut spending elsewhere.)
I wouldn’t discount the pressure private Defense contractors can exert on the US Government. Trump may be more constrained than he realizes. I’m sure the Swedish and French arms industries would like less competition from the US.
This is a strange rationale for the US not pulling out of NATO, but there it is.