Europe's uphill battle to keep Trump invested in NATO
A Pentagon defence review being conducted by Elbridge Colby has Europe's leaders worried because he has argued that the US should reposition its forces to face China and the Pacific
REUTERS/Claudia Greco
US President Donald Trump stands next to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer as NATO leaders pose for a group photo at a NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025.
Europe's uphill battle to keep Trump invested in NATO
Of all the challenges US President Donald Trump has presented to the established world order since returning to the White House in January, the impact he has had on the NATO alliance has been one of the most profound.
The seismic effect Trump’s return to the White House has had on the Western alliance has been clearly evident from the desperate efforts made by European Union leaders to bolster their defences following a series of provocative acts undertaken by the Russian military.
One of Trump’s enduring criticisms of NATO—an approach that dates back to his first term in office—has been that the European member states of the 32-strong alliance do not pull their weight, either in terms of making adequate financial or military provision for their own defence.
Trump’s complaints about the limitations of Europeans to defend themselves, moreover, were dramatically exposed after Moscow was accused of violating the airspace of several frontline NATO countries in September.
European leaders blamed the Kremlin for a succession of violations that took place over Danish, Estonian, Norwegian, Romanian, and Polish airspace in separate incidents.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk claimed 19 Russian drones had violated Polish airspace in September, with some flying deep enough into its territory to temporarily force the closure of four airports, including Warsaw's main hub, Chopin. At least three of the drones were shot down after NATO warplanes were scrambled to intercept the drones.
Tusk underlined the potential risk posed by the drone incursions—the first time Russian drones have been downed over NATO territory since Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022—by claiming the incident “brings us the closest we have been to open conflict since World War II.”
The seriousness of the potential threat Russia might pose to Europe’s security, moreover, was highlighted by claims that Russian drones and warplanes had violated the airspace of other NATO countries.
The Polish incident was followed by Romanian fighter jets reporting a Russian drone had violated the country’s airspace, and Estonia reporting that three Russian MiG-31 fighters had deliberately violated its airspace over the Gulf of Finland. Moscow was also accused of disrupting commercial flights in Denmark and Germany after unidentified drones were spotted flying over the countries’ main airports.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he suspected the Kremlin was behind drone incursions which forced the temporary closure of Munich Airport, leaving thousands of travellers attending the city’s annual Oktoberfest stranded.
“We suspect that a significant portion of it is probably controlled from Russia. But we are investigating the matter, and regardless of where it comes from, it is a serious threat to our security,” Merz said on state TV.
The seriousness of the Russian action was reflected in the fact that both Denmark and Estonia responded by requesting consultations under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty with other member states.
While most Western defence experts believe that the incursions were an attempt by Russia to test NATO’s defences at a time of escalating tensions over the Ukraine conflict, the ease with which the Russian military has penetrated the airspace of frontline NATO states has inevitably raised questions about the effectiveness of Europe’s ability to defend itself.
Europe depends on the US for 40% of its military power, a balance that needs to be urgently addressed
A vindication for Trump
Trump will view the airspace violations as vindication of his constant criticism that European leaders are not doing enough to provide for their own security and have become too reliant on American military strength to protect their interests.
The need to undertake a radical upgrade of Europe's current defence dispositions has not been lost on EU leaders, who convened for emergency talks in the Danish capital Copenhagen to address the issue.
Among the measures agreed to enhance the bloc's defences against future Russian aerial incursions was the eye-catching proposal to create a "drone wall"—a concept first proposed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her State of the Union address to European leaders in September as part of a broader plan called the Eastern Flank Watch.
The "drone wall"—one of four major EU defence projects designed to counter the mounting security threat posed by Russia—would involve the creation of a complex network of radars and interceptors that would significantly increase Europe's ability to defend its eastern flank.
Moreover, by committing to invest heavily in defending its borders, EU leaders will be hoping to persuade the Trump administration that they are serious about increasing their own defensive capabilities, and not constantly relying on the Americans to come to their aid, which many in the Trump administration still contend is the case.
The EU initiative, though, is not without its critics, with deep divisions already appearing between those countries, mainly nations located in close proximity to Russia, that support the initiative, and those that are a great deal more sceptical.
The Baltic states and Poland, in particular, are enthusiastic about the proposals, believing they will help to deter Moscow from committing future violations of their airspace. EU Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, a former Lithuanian prime minister, said the plan to establish air defences to cover Poland and the Baltics would cost about €1bn, and that the system could be up and running in less than a year.
France's President Emmanuel Macron (L), Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer meet on the sidelines of the two-day NATO Heads of State and Government summit in The Hague on June 24, 2025.
Cost concerns
The proposal, though, has met with opposition from other European countries, with both Germany and France raising concerns over feasibility and cost, how the proposals will be integrated into the existing EU and NATO military plans, and whether the measures amount to a power grab by Brussels over future European defence policy.
"Drones and anti-drones are the priority," French President Emmanuel Macron said in response to the proposed measures. "But we have to be clear: There is no perfect wall for Europe, we're speaking about a 3,000-kilometre border, do you think it's totally feasible? The answer is 'no.'" In Germany, Merz was equally sceptical about the definition of a "wall," saying he needed more details about the overall setup.
Meanwhile, opposition to the proposals from southern EU countries, such as Italy and Greece, was based on concerns that any future EU defence projects should benefit the entire bloc, and not just those countries on NATO's eastern flank.
These differences of opinion between EU leaders are particularly problematic for Brussels because, for the drone wall project to proceed, all EU member states must agree.
Any hesitation by European leaders to proceed with the defence plan, moreover, will only lead to increased tensions with Trump over US support for NATO. The US leader has made no secret of his innate scepticism about maintaining an alliance that has successfully kept the peace in Europe since its creation in 1949 following the devastation the continent suffered during World War II.
Trump's antagonism
One of the defining characteristics of Trump's first term in office was his aggressive attitude towards European allies, which he accused of not spending enough on their own defence needs, arguing that too many European countries failed to meet the minimum 2% of GDP spending requirement that NATO membership stipulates.
Trump's antagonistic attitude was highlighted by his public spat with then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who flatly refused to raise Germany's defence spending to the required level.
It came as no surprise, therefore, to many European leaders that, from the moment Trump began his second term in office in January, he renewed his criticism of the alliance and the failure of its European member states to fulfil their defensive obligations.
Trump's anti-European rhetoric, moreover, was reinforced by the appointment of several high-profile European sceptics to senior positions in his administration, such as Vice President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The extent of the Trump administration's hostility towards Europe was laid bare in the controversial speech Vance delivered to the Munich Security Conference in February, when he launched a brutal ideological assault on Europe, accusing its leaders of suppressing free speech, failing to halt illegal migration and running in fear from voters' true beliefs, hardly the language of someone who is supposed to be a close European ally. Vance painted a picture of European politics infected by media censorship, cancelled elections and political correctness.
US Vice President JD Vance gives a speech at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Munich, Germany February 14, 2025.
The Trump administration's confrontational approach towards its European allies, which it has also criticised for not doing more to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, has been all the more worrying for European leaders because, in an attempt to reassure the White House, they moved quickly to raise defence spending prior to the president taking office.
At the time Trump left the White House at the end of his first term, just six countries from the alliance actually met the 2% of GDP spending level NATO membership requires. Today, out of the 32 NATO allies, 23 have now met the target—a move driven primarily by European concerns that, without raising expenditure, Europe could find itself defenceless if the US failed to continue providing crucial military support.
But even this significant increase in European defence spending has failed to impress Trump, who has subsequently called for member states to increase military expenditure to 5% by 2035.
Trump's latest demand topped the agenda at this year's annual NATO summit, which took place in The Hague, where NATO leaders agreed to meet the new target. The final communique issued by NATO leaders said they were united against "profound" security challenges, singling out the "long-term threat posed by Russia" and terrorism.
The agreement to raise core defence spending in Europe is a recognition of how reliant the Europeans have become on US military support in the event of conflict in Europe. According to NATO sources, Europe depends on the US for 40% of its military power, a balance that needs to be urgently addressed as European powers move to improve their own military capabilities.
A recent report by the respected UK think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, found that there were "critical capability gaps" in Europe's current defence provisions, including an insufficient missile defence shield and an inability to track threats from space. Other shortcomings included shortages of long-range missiles, troop numbers, ammunition, logistical headaches and a lack of secure digital communications on the battlefield.
The report found that progress among European nations on building their own missile defence systems had been "slow", so that, without the protection of US Patriots or THAAD systems, Europe "lacks adequate … capacity across almost the entire threat spectrum".
The decision by European leaders at The Hague summit to significantly raise their game with regard to defence spending—together with von der Leyen's plans for Europe to implement its own measures to defend NATO's eastern flank—will certainly go some way to reassuring the Trump administration that, at the very least, they are moving in the right direction in terms of paying their fair share towards the cost of the alliance's defence.
Even so, tensions remain between Washington and Europe on the issue, to the extent that in October, Trump called on Spain—a country that has consistently failed to meet its NATO spending commitments—to be thrown out of the alliance.
European leaders will also be concerned about the conclusions reached by the Pentagon defence review being conducted by Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary for defence policy, which is due to be published at the end of this year.
Colby has previously criticised the Europeans for what he had described as their complacency over taking care of their own defensive requirements and has argued that the US would be better served by rebalancing its forces to face China and the Pacific.
There is particular anxiety that Colby might advise Trump to reduce the presence of US forces in Europe and remove all of the 20,000 or so US personnel stationed around NATO's eastern flank—a move that could significantly increase Europe's vulnerability to any further acts of Russian aggression.
Moscow will certainly be keeping a close eye on how relations between the US and its European allies progress to see whether—even with Europe's commitment to increasing its defensive capabilities—it retains the ability to fully defend its interests without US support.
