NATO depends on US military strength despite growing worries about commitment gaps.

NATO’s Challenges: A Conversation on Dependence and Future Strategies

In a recent discussion, former national security adviser Keith Kellogg shared his concerns about NATO, describing it as a “bloated structure” overly reliant on U.S. military strength.

Amid rising tensions, President Donald Trump has intensified pressure on NATO allies to boost their defense spending. He has also ordered the withdrawal of some U.S. troops from Germany and hinted at cuts in Spain and Italy. Even with years of rising defense budgets in Europe, NATO still heavily depends on U.S. military resources for areas like logistics and nuclear deterrence.

As threats from Russia mount and the Middle East remains unstable, a noticeable disparity between political promises and actual military capabilities is becoming evident. Calls for reform within NATO are getting louder.

Whispers of Change

“NATO’s imbalance isn’t a new concern,” Kellogg remarked, suggesting earlier discussions during Trump’s presidency focused on a “phased relationship” with NATO. He emphasized the need for a reimagined alliance, proposing a different kind of defense partnership with Europe.

While the alliance has grown politically, military capability hasn’t kept pace, leading to larger gaps between commitments and reality. Kellogg expressed concern that European nations aren’t investing adequately in defense, pointing to the UK’s military difficulties—such as having only one operational ship among six and two aircraft carriers in maintenance.

However, opinions differ. Some experts, like John R. Deni from the U.S. Army War College, claim NATO has never been more crucial, particularly when comparing it to both China and Russia.

Exploring Dependency

By 2010, the U.S. was responsible for about 65-70% of NATO’s defense spending, according to analyst Barak Sheener. Kellogg pointed out that European nations have historically relied on the U.S., creating an intentional dependence for mutual deterrence and defense.

Despite this, Deni acknowledged the potential risks of becoming overly dependent on American resources, especially in conventional defenses, a situation shaped partly by U.S. priorities that favored overseas conflicts over territorial protection.

This disparity is apparent in the realm of nuclear deterrence, where U.S. nuclear capabilities largely dictate NATO’s response options. A NATO official highlighted the need to bolster European defenses while acknowledging the vital role of U.S. support.

As European allies take steps to strengthen their military capacities, many are collaborating more with the U.S. to ensure a collective ability to protect their populations.

Facing Future Threats

Kellogg emphasized that NATO’s effectiveness hinges on American presence, with worries about the consequences if U.S. troops are needed elsewhere. Such a scenario could strain NATO’s operational capabilities, particularly in intelligence and logistics.

Deni sees NATO as a significant asset rather than a burden. He pointed out that while defense spending among allies is increasing, the need for rapid adaptation to new threats remains paramount.