NATO at a crossroads: US threatens to walk away

Editor's note: Xu Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

US President Donald Trump recently expressed during an interview that he is "strongly considering" pulling the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), labelling the alliance a "paper tiger" and declaring that American membership is now "beyond reconsideration."

Coming on the heels of European allies' refusal to support US-Israel joint military actions against Iran, Trump's remarks are the strongest sign yet that Washington no longer regards Europe as a reliable military partner. The transatlantic alliance, the bedrock of Western security for nearly eight decades, is facing an existential crisis.

But is NATO truly on the verge of collapse, or is this just another round of transactional brinkmanship? And what would a world without US‑led NATO look like for Europe, China and the rest of the globe?

Trump's harsh words are not new. Since his first term, he has repeatedly accused European allies of "free‑riding" on American military might. However, the current rupture is deeper than previous squabbles.

According to media reports, the US asked European allies to send warships to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz and provide broader support for its military campaign against Iran. When countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain refused, with some of them even closing their airspace to US military‑related flights, the White House's frustration boiled over. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio went so far as to call NATO a "one‑way street," suggesting that America might "re‑examine" its membership after attacking Iran.

Some observers suggest that Trump's threats are likely a pressure tactic rather than a fixed policy – an attempt to force Europe to shoulder more of the financial and military burden while remaining aligned with US strategic objectives, particularly regarding the Ukraine crisis.

Faced with the prospect of US abandonment, Europe has begun to stir. The EU's "ReArm Europe/Readiness 2030" plan aims to mobilize €800 billion by the end of the decade. France and the UK are leading discussions on a unified European troop contingent. Some analysts see signs of a "European awakening," a shift toward building defense autonomy without waiting for Washington.

But the gap between ambition and reality remains wide. European defense integration has long been hobbled by fragmented command structures, divergent national priorities and a deep‑seated reluctance to cede military sovereignty to Brussels. A "military Schengen," allowing rapid cross‑border troop movements, remains mired in bureaucratic and infrastructural bottlenecks. And critically, European defense industries still depend on US technologies and Chinese rare earth elements, exposing deep strategic vulnerabilities.

One of NATO's most revealing failures has been its attempt to use the so‑called China challenge as a unifying glue. Since the 2019 summit in London, NATO has steadily escalated its rhetoric against Beijing, culminating in the 2022 Strategic Concept labelling China a "systemic challenge." The logic was simple: An external threat would paper over internal cracks. In reality, the opposite has happened.

The alliance's focus on China has only exposed its fractures more starkly. European members have deep economic ties with China – bilateral trade reached $749.3 billion between January and November 2025. It's also estimated that European defense industries rely on Chinese intermediate inputs for nearly 10% of their needs. An anti-China stance brings only obstacles to EU's self-development. Washington's push to "decouple" Europe from Chinese trade while simultaneously provoking Beijing threatens not only European prosperity but also its strategic sovereignty.

Regardless of whether Trump actually follows through on his threats – and the legal hurdles are substantial – the trajectory is clear. The United States is reorienting its strategic focus toward the Asia‑Pacific and "competition" with China, leaving Europe to fend more for itself.

For China, this shifting landscape presents both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, a US withdrawal from European security commitments could free up American military resources for the Asia‑Pacific, intensifying pressure on Beijing. On the other, a more autonomous Europe, one less beholden to Washington's strategic dictates, could become a more balanced global partner.

NATO has survived for 76 years. But today, the alliance is being pulled apart by its own internal contradictions marked by diverging threat perceptions, a crisis of burden‑sharing and the steady erosion of American commitment. Trump's "paper tiger" jibe may be harsh, but it captures a deeper truth: An alliance that exists only in transactional terms, where commitment is conditional on immediate payback, is no alliance at all.

Europe now faces a historic choice. It can continue to plead for American protection, hoping that America will restore the old bargain. Or it can finally embrace genuine strategic autonomy by building its own defense capabilities, integrating its fragmented forces and forging a foreign policy that serves European interests, not American ones. The window for that choice may not stay open forever. And in a world moving rapidly toward multipolarity, the transatlantic alliance as we have known it may already be living on borrowed time.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)