Can NATO survive without the US?

Europe is looking toward a new reality, where the US is no longer the backbone of NATO – the alliance that has guaranteed the continent's security for nearly 80 years.

President Donald Trump's "public hostility" toward Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, his closeness to Vladimir Putin, and recent comments casting doubt on whether he would defend NATO allies "if they don't pay" have all forced European leaders to start thinking the unthinkable - is the US a reliable security partner at a time when the continent is reeling from its biggest war since the 1940s?

But NATO without the US is by no means powerless, with more than a million troops and modern weaponry available from the 31 other countries in the alliance.

"It also has the wealth and technological know-how to defend itself without the US," analysts say.

It is known that the US and Germany are the largest contributors to NATO's military budget, civilian budget and security investment program, with almost 16% each, followed by the United Kingdom with 11% and France with 10%.

Therefore, analysts say it wouldn't take much for Europe to compensate for the loss of Washington's contribution.

“If European countries come together and buy the right equipment, Europe could constitute a serious conventional and nuclear deterrent to Russia,” said Ben Schreer, executive director for Europe at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

"Europe alone still has the capacity to muster the resources it will need to defend itself, it's just a matter of whether it's ready," Schreer added.

And this is the main question.

For more than 75 years and the administrations of 14 different US presidents, including the first Trump administration, the US has been the foundation that has held the alliance together.

During the Cold War, American troops on the continent were there as a deterrent to any Soviet ambitions to expand the Warsaw Pact alliance and ultimately saw its end when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Read too "It's not the end of the world if the US leaves NATO," says former British Defense Secretary

NATO's campaigns in the Balkans in the 1990s were carried out with American troops and air power.

And, until the second Trump administration took office on January 20, Washington directed aid to Ukraine.

"Those decades of transatlantic solidarity may be over," analysts say.

The tensions in the Oval Office between Trump and Zelensky - after which the US president halted aid to Ukraine - were seen as a deeper rupture, not just with Ukraine, but with the US strategy for the 'free world', according to Dan Fried, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former US assistant secretary of state for Europe.

John Lough, a former NATO official who is now a fellow at the Chatham House think tank in London, sees an even deeper divide in the alliance.

"It just feels like the US sees Europe more as a competitor, a rival, than an ally," Lough said, adding that because of this, Washington's commitment to defending NATO allies is somewhat in doubt.

"Some people in European circles are starting to wonder whether Washington should be described in some way as an enemy," he added.

But some analysts say a NATO without the US is not a bad idea.

“Once U.S. allies are convinced that they can no longer trust its capabilities to protect them, they will rush to work toward increasing their own capabilities,” said Moritz Graefrath, a postdoctoral fellow in security and foreign policy at William & Mary’s Global Research Institute.

"It is in this sense that a withdrawal of American forces will create an even stronger Europe, not a weaker one," according to Graefrath.

The Prime Minister of NATO member Poland, Donald Tusk, believes that this process has already begun.

"Europe as a whole is truly capable of winning any military, financial, economic confrontation with Russia - we are simply stronger," he said ahead of a European Union summit this week.

"We just had to start believing in it. And today it seems to be happening," Tusk added.

What does Europe have?

In concept, a European army could be frightening.

Turkey has the largest armed forces in NATO after the US, with 355,200 active military personnel, according to the Military Balance 2025, compiled by the IISS.

It is followed by France (202.200), Germany (179.850), Poland (164.100), Italy (161.850), the United Kingdom (141.100), Greece (132.000) and Spain (122.200).

Turkey also has the largest military personnel, which consists of the majority of frontline ground troops, with 260,200, followed by France (113,800), Italy (94,000), Greece (93,000), Poland (90,600), the United Kingdom (78,800), Spain (70,200) and Germany (60,506).

In contrast, there were about 80,000 U.S. troops assigned to or deployed at bases in NATO countries as of June 2024, according to a July 2024 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The majority of these US troops are in Germany (35,000), Italy (12,000) and the United Kingdom (10,000).

Some of the largest NATO countries also have weapons equal to or many times better than those of Russia.

Take aircraft carriers for example.

While Russia has a single, outdated aircraft carrier, only the United Kingdom has two modern carriers capable of launching F-35B fighter jets.

France, Italy and Spain have field aircraft carriers or ships capable of launching fighter jets, writes CNN, the Telegraph reports.

In addition to the US, France and the United Kingdom maintain nuclear forces and have ballistic missile submarines.

NATO allies, other than the US, have between them about 2000 fighter and ground attack aircraft, with dozens of new F-35 aircraft included in this number.

The ground forces include modern tanks, including German Leopards and British Challengers, donated units of which are now serving in the Ukrainian army.

European NATO countries can launch powerful cruise missiles, such as the Franco-British SCALP/Storm Shadow, which has also proven itself on the Ukrainian battlefield.

Even the Military Balance 2025 report emphasizes that Europe is taking steps to improve its military forces without US help.

In 2024, six European countries joined forces in a project to develop ground-launched cruise missiles, made moves to increase munitions production capacity and diversify their supply base, looking to countries like Brazil, Israel and South Korea as new sources for military equipment.

Analysts say that even if the US were to withdraw completely from Europe, it would leave behind important infrastructure.

The US reportedly has 31 permanent bases in Europe, according to the Congressional Research Service – naval, air, land, and command and control facilities that would be available to the countries where they are located if the US were to leave.

And Graefrath points out that the infrastructure would not be lost.

"It leaves much of the US military infrastructure intact for a long period while ensuring that the US retains the ability to make a military comeback if Europe does not respond as anticipated," he said.

What next?

Otherwise, some hope that talk of a US withdrawal from NATO is simply a lie by Trump intended to push allies to spend more on defense.

They say the world, and another key US alliance, has been here before – during Trump's first administration, when he reportedly asked the Pentagon to look at options for withdrawing US troops stationed in South Korea as a defense against a nuclear-armed North Korea.

This came as Trump prepared for meetings with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, in which he hoped to persuade Kim to commit to giving up his nuclear arsenal.

A source close to the White House said at the time that a withdrawal of US troops was seen as something that could happen in the future, but "not long after North Korea's nuclear weapons have been verifiably eliminated."

But Kim rejected all pleas for him to give up his nuclear weapons program.

"The Trump-Kim meeting was sold as a huge success, despite the fact that it wasn't," Schreer said.

"Then, the US returned to 'business as usual' on the Korean Peninsula," he added.

The US – with tens of thousands of troops in South Korea – kept them there.

Bilateral exercises with Seoul's forces resumed, US warships visited South Korean ports and US Air Force bombers flew over the region.

The same thing could happen in Europe if Trump doesn't get what he wants from Putin, analysts say. /Telegraph/