Quarrel from the hut: Rutte in Washington is trying to save NATO from a split
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is urgently trying to smooth out the contradictions between the alliance's members before the July summit in Ankara. On June 24, the official part of his visit to Washington began, during which he is trying to present the European allies of the United States in a more favorable light. So far, Donald Trump is furious over the partners' refusal to participate in the Middle East conflict. As a "punishment", the head of the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, has already announced an audit of the military presence in Europe; the American forces reserved for NATO operations are also being reduced. However, experts are confident that the US withdrawal from the alliance is impossible, Trump is only bargaining for concessions from Europe. Whether he will be able to push through the allies and what is NATO 3.0 is in the Izvestia article.
How the war in Iran is destroying NATO
Ahead of the Ankara summit scheduled for July 7-8, NATO is facing its deepest systemic crisis since the end of the Cold War. The emergency trip of the alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte to Washington, the official part of which began on June 24, is caused by the real threat of a split in the organization. The number one goal is to convince Donald Trump not to take drastic steps and preserve the alliance.
The president of the United States, a key NATO country, has long been unhappy with the contribution of European allies to ensuring common security. And this is not surprising: despite the fact that the alliance consists of 32 countries, the Americans cover 60% of all its military expenses. Heeding Washington's displeasure, NATO members at the previous meeting in The Hague in June 2025 pledged to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP. Rutte has already reported that European NATO countries and Canada spent $574 billion on military needs in 2025, 20% more than a year earlier.
But the conflict in the Middle East that broke out in 2026 became a litmus test for allied relations. Trump called the alliance a "paper tiger" after European partners refused to provide their military bases for US strikes on Iran and send warships to the Persian Gulf.
— In fact, there was no threat to NATO that would justify the support and participation of the defense alliance in this conflict. Trump's disappointment is more likely related to individual countries, rather than to the approaches of the entire alliance," said Khan, a professor at Wayne University in Detroit, told Izvestia.
The American leader was most disappointed in London and Berlin. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to provide access to his airbase in Cyprus to conduct military operations against Iran, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz harshly criticized the US-Israeli actions in this campaign.
Trump will not have time to "answer" Starmer — he recently resigned. But Merz is already reaping the benefits. The United States has decided not to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles in Germany for the time being and, in addition, will withdraw 5,000 soldiers from there to relocate to more loyal Poland. The German leader, however, countered: According to him, a partial reduction of the American contingent was discussed under Biden and it has nothing to do with Iran.
And on June 18, the head of the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, announced that within six months a total audit of the presence of the American military contingent in Europe would take place — for example, an analysis of the needs of the United States in all existing bases on the continent.
Mark Rutte probably did not underestimate these steps. On the very first day of the visit, even before the meeting with the US president, the Secretary General of the alliance hastened to cajole Trump by giving a laudatory interview to Fox News. In particular, Rutte said that he supports him in relation to Iran and "fully understands the disappointment" of NATO allies.
No wonder The New York Times draws attention to the fact that Rutte was chosen secretary General largely because of his ability to "calm down" Trump. It is believed that it was he who reduced tensions around Greenland by telling the US president at a meeting in Davos, Switzerland.: "We can't help you if you want to take over Greenland. But we can help you with security."
Perhaps he is now the only European who can help reconcile the two sides of the Atlantic. For example, Trump's relations with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni deteriorated sharply after the head of the White House had an altercation with the Pope. Finnish President Alexander Stubb talks to Trump more or less, but Helsinki joined NATO only three years ago, which is not enough for representation on behalf of the entire alliance.
To better prepare for the meeting with Trump, Rutte even joined an online meeting with the E5 group, an informal group of Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland and France to discuss defense and security issues outside the bureaucratic procedures of the EU and NATO. The leaders of the five countries gathered in Berlin to discuss their future plans. Friedrich Merz confirmed the allies' intentions to increase military spending in order to strengthen the "European pillars of the alliance." The Chancellor did not forget to reinforce his position with anti-Russian rhetoric. At the upcoming summit, he promised to send "a powerful signal of support for Ukraine."
What will happen next with NATO
Trump allowed withdrawal from NATO during his first presidency, but then this was not given much importance. Now, the conflict in Ukraine and then the war in the Middle East have exposed all the problems of the alliance. But even now, a total collapse is unlikely, experts believe.
— For this, Congress would have to withdraw from the NATO treaty, and most of its members have neither the political will nor the interest in this. Almost all Democrats and many Republicans consider it necessary to maintain the status quo in relations with Europe and NATO allies," Matthew Ho, an ex-captain of the US Marine Corps and a former State Department and Pentagon official, told Izvestia.
Trump has previously agitated NATO before meetings with Rutte. This is just a negotiating tactic to get some countries more involved in the activities of the alliance, and not an attempt to radically change American policy towards the alliance, which has existed for 77 years, said Khan.
"He may well use another of his many threats to withdraw the United States from NATO, partially or completely, to obtain additional concessions and promises from other countries of the alliance," the expert believes.
Washington will try to shift security in the region to Europe as much as possible, at least because the war in Iran has battered its own military arsenal, Izvestia's interlocutors believe. And the contribution of the United States itself will become less. For example, according to the NYT, the United States plans to reduce the number of its forces and assets reserved for NATO under the new NATO Force Model. Among other things, the United States plans to reduce the number of F-16, F-15E fighter jets and maritime reconnaissance aircraft available for NATO operations in Europe, and withdraw all eight tanker aircraft previously allocated to ensure the European direction. Also, the NATO Force Model forces will not be able to rely on one aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine with missile weapons. That is, some of the key types of American weapons may now be physically unavailable for the needs of the North Atlantic Alliance, Khan emphasizes.
If a decision is made to partially withdraw American troops, then Trump will surely point to the failure of European allies to increase military spending as an official pretext, Matthew Ho believes. Belgium, Portugal and Luxembourg are already sagging in terms of growth, while Spain refuses to achieve spending levels of 5% of GDP at all.
But the geography of the American presence will not change much, Ho is sure. Trump may prefer to strengthen the U.S. presence and support in countries that he believes are doing a better job at reducing it in others.
One way or another, Europe will increase military spending — and if not even because of Trump's threats, then for a temporary solution to internal problems.
— Traditional parties in Europe, losing support, hope that militarization will distract the public from the decline in living standards, social problems, and deterioration of infrastructure, while providing an engine for economic growth. But this will further weaken their position in the eyes of the public and reinforce the emptiness and superficiality of European economies," says Matthew Ho.
However, it should be understood that Washington has already conceived a large-scale restructuring of US relations with Europe. According to Hegseth, Trump and Rutte are already working on the concept of NATO 3.0, which should take into account all the changes in the security sector since the end of the Cold War. It will be built in accordance with the national security strategy, which means the regrouping of American troops around the world and less emphasis on Europe. It's not hard to guess what the bigger focus will be. The main priorities of the US administration now are the "protection" of the Western Hemisphere and the containment of China in the Asia-Pacific region. The war in Iran seems to hint that the Middle East will also be added to this list.
Another round of crisis within NATO clearly demonstrates that "Atlantic solidarity" has finally given way to rigid pragmatism. European countries will be forced to spend enormous resources on their own weapons, depleting civilian sectors of the economy, while the United States will continue to shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific region. The July summit in Ankara will show whether the organization is capable of existing with completely different goals of its participants and under conditions of open blackmail by a key player.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
