Stone in the bosom: Europe and Canada have conceived an alternative to NATO
For the first time in decades, European capitals are seriously discussing the contours of a "European NATO." Behind closed doors, France, Britain, Germany, Poland, the Nordic countries and Canada are working on a scenario in which Europe will assume key defense functions traditionally assigned to Washington. However, contrary to the screaming headlines of the American media, we are not talking about the imminent withdrawal of the United States from the alliance — such a step is practically technically impossible: according to American law, congressional approval is required to withdraw from NATO, which is unlikely in the current political realities. Izvestia has figured out what is really behind these behind-the-scenes consultations.
Behind-the-scenes conversations
Europe and Canada are discussing the creation of a "European NATO" amid threats by US President Donald Trump to withdraw the country from the North Atlantic Alliance. This is reported by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing sources. In particular, it is planned to use the existing military structures of the bloc.
Work on an alternative alliance is still underway not at the official level, but over working dinners and during backstage discussions. France, Britain, Poland, as well as the Scandinavian countries are participating in the negotiations.
According to sources, the plans are not aimed at creating competition for the current bloc, but are designed to "expand the involvement of Europeans in security control," as well as supplement American military resources with those that Europe itself has.
The main issues are considered to be maintaining nuclear authority even in the event of the United States refusing to defend Europe, operational coherence and maintaining deterrence potential against the Russian Federation.
Currently, the NATO structure is built around Washington's leadership in various areas, from logistics to intelligence, including the composition of the bloc's top military command leadership.
Trump was offended
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized American allies in the EU for not actively participating in the work of the North Atlantic Bloc and spending little on defense. After the start of the war between the United States and Israel with Iran, the American leader accused NATO of a lack of support.
He pressed the Allies to send ships to the Strait of Hormuz, but Germany, Italy, Spain and France refused. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stressed that NATO is a defensive alliance, not an interventionist one. Britain promised to explore the possibilities of assistance, and Italy and France completely irritated Trump when they decided to directly negotiate with Iran on the passage of their ships.
"I've always said that we help them, but they'll never help us. If something serious happens, I don't think it will happen, but if something happens, I guarantee you that they won't be around," the US president said.
Earlier, he called NATO a paper tiger without Washington, accusing the allies of cowardice. And he noted that European countries refused to participate in the operation against Iran, and now they complain about expensive oil, although they are not ready to help even with unblocking the Strait of Hormuz, which, according to him, is a simple military task with minimal risk.
After that, Trump said that he was seriously considering withdrawing from the alliance. Subsequently, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who, according to The Economist, "used to interfere in the president's erratic policies to stabilize transatlantic relations, but now he has stopped," explained that the final decision depends on the president, who can reassess the value of NATO following the war with Iran.
Not a replacement, but a redistribution
However, Europe's discussions of a new alliance are not about replacing Washington, but about redistributing the burden and insuring against the unpredictability of the American leader. One of the architects of Plan B, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, explained the situation in more detail: "The burden shift from the United States to Europe is already happening and will continue. The most important thing is to implement it in a controlled manner, and not to allow a rapid withdrawal of the United States."
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stressed that the alliance must "become more European in order to remain transatlantic." The Europeans are trying to strengthen their own structures not in spite of NATO, but within it — as a "coalition of the willing" who are ready to take over the air defense command, logistics, routes for the transfer of forces to the Baltic States and Poland, and large-scale regional exercises.
According to the WSJ, the discussion of plans to create a "European NATO" began with the submission of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who began to doubt Washington as a reliable ally.
Initially, Germany resisted the idea of greater European defense independence promoted by France, preferring to consider the United States as the main guarantor of security. However, Merz subsequently began to reconsider his position, seeing Trump's willingness to abandon support for Ukraine. The reason was also the desire of the head of the White House to annex Greenland and the US administration's rejection of value orientations in politics.
In June, at the NATO summit in The Hague, almost all member countries of the military—political alliance committed themselves to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. In 2024, their combined expenditures amounted to $1.506 trillion, 55% of global military spending. At the same time, in 2026, the US defense budget will exceed $1 trillion, while Germany's will exceed €108.2 billion. The Polish authorities plan to spend 200 billion zlotys ($54.75 billion) on defense in 2026, which will amount to 4.8% of the country's GDP.
EU defense investments have also increased, from €189 billion in 2015 to €381 billion in 2025. In addition, the European Commission's Rearm Europe plan is in effect, which includes €800 billion in total investments. They include a €150 billion SAFE (Security Action for Europe) loan facility for joint defense purchases.
At the same time, a significant part of the finances still flows overseas. Germany, which has become the world's fourth largest arms exporter, makes most of its purchases in the United States. The European Commission is trying to redirect this flow: the SAFE program is directly aimed at joint purchases from the European defense industry, which irritates Washington.
Over the past few years, the EU has created specific institutions and mechanisms. Among them are not only SAFE, but also the European Defense Fund (EDF), the European Peace Fund (EPF), as well as joint industrial projects and the personnel "Europeanization" of NATO — the recent planned large-scale exercises on the northern flank, on the border with Russia, were led by European rather than American officers.
The most sensitive topic is nuclear deterrence. After Trump's statements about Greenland, Merz and Macron began discussing the possibility of extending the French "nuclear umbrella" to other European countries. A few years ago, this question seemed unthinkable.
The catalyst for European defense consolidation — and at the same time its testing ground — was the support of Ukraine from the EU countries. According to the Kiel Institute, the West's total spending on aid to Ukraine has exceeded 420 billion euros since 2022. At the same time, in 2025, Europe overtook the United States in terms of military aid for the first time: €35.1 billion from the EU versus €30.7 billion from Washington.
Gradually, Ukraine is integrating into the European defense market not as a supplicant, but as a co-manufacturer in joint ventures, with certification according to NATO standards, localization of production of drones, projectiles, and air defense components. It turns out that the Ukrainian conflict is generating demand, which the European military-industrial complex is learning to meet on its own.
Despite the dynamics, European defense remains tied to the United States due to its dependence on Washington's "critical capabilities." Europe does not have its own analogues of American satellite intelligence, early warning systems for missile attacks, strategic aviation, and means of suppressing enemy air defenses. The creation of these systems is not a matter of years, but decades and hundreds of billions of euros.
So the "European NATO" is not an alternative to the alliance and not a response to the mythical withdrawal of the United States, which is legally practically impossible. This is a forced consolidation of European military resources under the guise of the transatlantic crisis.
The dependency persists
In the current situation, the question arises about the degree of presence in the alliance and the costs, Natalia Eremina, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor at St. Petersburg State University, noted in an interview with Izvestia.
— By changing this degree, the United States can seriously influence the development of NATO. Now Trump has voiced the idea of diversifying risks and financial costs, shifting them to his vassals. In addition, the degree of diversification also depends on the degree of their direct subordination to Washington," she said.
US President Donald Trump
It is "according to Trump's thoughts" that the United States will develop strategies and give instructions, the expert emphasized. And the "vassals" will buy their weapons and do whatever they are told.
— Trump continues to insist that European partners have been using the US military umbrella for a long time and have not paid enough for it. As long as this tactic will work, and the EU countries will pay, the United States will not lose anything, so they will not legally withdraw yet," the political scientist explained.
These threats are necessary for EU countries to behave as they are told in Washington, the Izvestia interlocutor clarified. According to the analyst, the United States plans to observe everything from the sidelines, and other countries will also pay them for this.
— In fact, of course, this is no longer a full-fledged interaction, so the EU plans to strengthen its defense structures. Such projects have already been created, for example, PESCO (Permanent structured cooperation in the field of security and defense. — Izvestia). There are cyber defense centers, various services, etc. But, of course, these structures are not enough," Eremina clarified.
In her opinion, Europe's dependence on the United States remains. The current period can be called a transitional one.
— The only question is whether Brussels will have enough funds and forces to implement its plans. So far, we see that there are clearly not enough of them," the expert concluded.
Europeanization of existing structures
The idea of creating an alternative defense alliance in Europe can only be considered as a backup scenario, but not as a full-fledged replacement for NATO, explained Ruslan Andreev, project manager of the Polylog Group, political consultant, to Izvestia.
"Rather, we are not talking about a new organization, but about the "Europeanization" of existing NATO structures — the transfer of greater responsibility for defense, logistics and command to European countries," the specialist said.
In his opinion, the discussion of such initiatives indicates the growing disagreements within the North Atlantic bloc. European allies have expressed doubts about Washington's reliability as a key guarantor of security, including against the background of changes in the US position on Ukraine. At the same time, the American side, according to the expert, demonstrates dissatisfaction with the level of involvement of partners in international conflicts.
Germany, which is ready to support the redistribution of responsibilities within NATO, can play an important role in the development of the new model, the analyst suggested. This is due, among other things, to the limited access of a number of European countries to the nuclear deterrent system.
In the long term, Europe is able to strengthen its own defense capabilities through the development of military production and the reform of command structures, Andreev admitted. However, such changes are unlikely in the coming years, as dependence on the United States for nuclear deterrence, satellite intelligence, and missile defense remains key constraints. It is these areas that require significant resources and time to create alternative mechanisms within Europe.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
