A NATO Without the U.S.? Weighing the Pros, Cons, and Strategic Realities

As Europe accelerates its defence spending and strategises its military future, the question of NATO’s viability without the United States has gained renewed attention. With recent geopolitical shifts, a potential decrease in U.S. involvement, and Europe’s growing ambition for strategic autonomy, could NATO function effectively without its most powerful member?

The Changing European Defence Landscape

The European Union has been ramping up its defence efforts in response to global uncertainties. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed an €800 billion "REARM Europe" plan, aimed at fortifying defence capabilities amid fears of potential U.S. disengagement and the suspension of American aid to Ukraine. This initiative allows member nations to boost military spending while bypassing strict EU fiscal regulations, with a proposed €150 billion in EU-backed loans allocated for defence investments. On February 3, 2025, EU leaders convened in Brussels to discuss strengthening collective defence mechanisms. Key topics included increasing military investments, mobilising public and private funding, and deepening cooperation with NATO and other partners. With EU member states spending an estimated €326 billion on defence in 2024, there is a clear push towards developing independent security structures.

European Strategic Autonomy

A NATO without the U.S. would force Europe to take full responsibility for its own defence, fostering greater self-reliance and reducing dependence on American leadership. This could also accelerate the development of a more integrated European military force under EU initiatives such as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF). Furthermore, without U.S. influence, NATO’s European members could adopt a more autonomous foreign policy, avoiding entanglements in American-led military interventions. This might lead to a stronger focus on diplomacy and regional security rather than overseas military operations. Additionally, a shift away from reliance on U.S. military hardware could stimulate Europe’s defence industry, leading to increased production of advanced weapons systems, cyber capabilities, and intelligence networks. This would create jobs and foster innovation within the EU’s defence sector.

Military Capability Gaps

The U.S. contributes nearly 70% of NATO’s total military spending. Europe currently lacks key strategic assets such as long-range strike capabilities, nuclear deterrence (except for France and the UK), and robust logistical and intelligence infrastructure. A NATO without U.S. military backing would face significant challenges in maintaining deterrence against major threats. However, it must also be added to the picture that European countries have different security priorities: Eastern Europe is focused on deterring Russia, while Southern Europe prioritises migration and Mediterranean stability. Internal disagreements over leadership, resource allocation, and strategy could weaken NATO’s effectiveness without the unifying presence of the U.S.

A NATO without the U.S. could embolden Russia, which may perceive a weaker Europe as an opportunity to escalate hybrid warfare, cyberattacks, and territorial expansion in Eastern Europe. Countries like Poland and the Baltic states may feel especially vulnerable and could seek alternative security arrangements outside NATO. And yet, perhaps the collapse of the transatlantic partnership is exactly what Europe needs to awaken to the new landscape and the new responsibilities as a united front.

Hidden Hand Policies: A Geopolitical Agenda for Europe?

While Europe’s military buildup appears to be a response to security threats, it all might be part of a larger geopolitical restructuring driven by powerful behind-the-scenes forces—often referred to as the "Hidden Hand."

Strategic Autonomy or Centralised Control?

Is Europe’s defence spending truly about security, or is it a means to consolidate military power under a centralised EU structure? If NATO without the U.S. leads to a fully integrated European military, it could shift control from sovereign nations to Brussels, reducing national decision-making over defence policies. If NATO weakens or dissolves, it might justify the creation of a new global military alliance, potentially under an expanded United Nations security force. A more militarised EU could be a prototype for a future supranational security bloc, reducing individual nations' control over their armed forces.

Russia as a Justification for Systemic Change?

While Russia poses a real security risk, its threat could also be used strategically to accelerate European militarisation. The fear of a Russian invasion could convince hesitant European nations to accept greater integration, expanded surveillance measures, and new political controls in the name of security.

Can NATO Survive Without the U.S.?

While Europe is making significant strides toward military independence, NATO without the U.S. would face severe capability shortfalls, internal disunity, and heightened external threats. However, if Europe continues to invest heavily in defence, builds stronger strategic cohesion, and enhances technological capabilities, a newNATO could emerge as a long-term possibility. At the same time, it is essential to question whether this shift is genuinely about security or part of a broader agenda to restructure power dynamics in Europe and beyond. If NATO weakens, will Europe gain greater sovereignty—or fall into a new system of centralised control? The coming years will determine whether NATO evolves into a more balanced alliance or whether Europe ultimately forges its own independent security architecture.

More to Learn