Putin's favorite American foreign policy idea

U.S. President Donald Trump in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. (Alex Brandon/AP Photo) Prefer on Google Wolfgang Pusztai Security, defense, and policy analyst U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked NATO. In one of his latest publications on Truth Social , Trump said the alliance is a "paper tiger" without the U.S. and criticized NATO allies for not backing the American operation in Iran. In response, Spain's Foreign Minister, Jose Manuel Albares, called for the European Union to create its own army and strengthen defense integration. His comments underscore that there are a few questions officials in European capitals continue to be preoccupied with: Will Trump leave NATO ? Are American security guarantees to Europe still reliable? Of course, the U.S.'s commitment to NATO is not without self-interest. NATO offers the U.S. many key advantages. American NATO membership allows the U.S. to dominate a huge defense market, particularly because U.S. industry usually drives NATO technological standards. NATO is a tool for containing Russia 's influence, not only in Europe — a fact that the Trump administration may be underestimating — but also in the Arctic and the Pacific, both of which are becoming increasingly important to the U.S. NATO provides the U.S. with a pool of interoperable partners for military operations around the globe, such as those in Iraq, naval operations in the Red Sea, and off the coast of Somalia. However, as Trump has stressed, the Europeans are by and large absent from the Iran war, which is certainly a mistake, as security policy should be driven by interests and not by emotions. American access to NATO territory provides a significant geostrategic advantage by increasing strategic reach and enabling forward bases for global operations, including Ballistic Missile Defense and Anti-Submarine Warfare. Currently, while some European countries, such as Spain, have prohibited the use of their airspace for missions related to the war in Iran, American bases and harbors in Europe provide irreplaceable logistical support for operations. More than 20 heavy U.S. bombers are currently based in the U.K. Without access to bases in Europe, any large American military operation in the Middle East would be extremely challenging, if not impossible. Overall, it does not make sense for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO. Moreover, according to the National Defense Authorization Act 2024 , no president may withdraw from NATO without a two-thirds vote of the Senate or an act of Congress. Therefore, President Trump simply cannot unilaterally decide to withdraw from NATO. NATO's mutual defense, enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, is ensured not by ink on paper, but by boots on the ground. During the Cold War, the "layered cake system" of allied forces in Germany and the "Allied Mobile Force" for the alliance's northern and southern flanks guaranteed American soldiers' participation in the defense against potential Warsaw Pact aggression from the outset and thus American involvement in the war. Today, the forward presence of American troops and those of other key NATO nations on NATO's eastern border serves the same purpose. As long as U.S. troops are stationed in Eastern Europe , Moscow knows that America's commitment to defending its European allies is serious. Without a doubt, Europe needs to significantly strengthen its defense capabilities, particularly in missile and drone defense, early warning systems, and long-range strike capabilities. Additionally, it must bolster its intelligence, cyber, and space assets. Ammunition stockpiles must be greatly increased to sustain a prolonged conflict. While all this will not happen overnight, the sooner research and development in these critical areas are boosted, the sooner equipment can be procured. Consequently, Europe will not only need the American nuclear shield for the foreseeable future, but also other key capabilities. It would be dangerous for Europeans to signal to Washington that they no longer count on the U.S. and will replace NATO with a common European defense. Without a physical presence of forces, compliance with security guarantees should not be taken for granted, and Europe's military capabilities will remain limited for the foreseeable future. Both of these factors also have significant implications for Ukraine . American security guarantees would likely deter Russia, but only if American troops were permanently stationed in Ukraine, which is highly unlikely. U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands at the end of a joint press conference after participating in a US-Russia summit on Ukraine at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S. on Aug. 15, 2025. (Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images) A security guarantee solely from Europe would most likely not scare off Putin, simply because the Europeans lack military credibility. Moreover, if there were no European troops on the ground in Ukraine near the front lines, it would be questionable whether these guarantees would be honored in case of necessity, especially as Europe is defenseless against missile attacks and very vulnerable to Russian mass drone attacks. Realistically speaking, it is unlikely that the leading European powers would seriously risk a major European war in the event of renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine that could heavily damage their own countries. Consequently, while American and European security guarantees are undoubtedly important for Ukraine, the most reliable and effective way to deter Russia after a ceasefire is to rapidly build up strong, modern armed forces, including a "Ukrainian Iron Dome" and a powerful air force capable of striking long-distance targets. Editor's note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. Wolfgang Pusztai is a freelance Security & Policy Analyst with a special focus on North Africa, the Middle East, and Ukraine. He was the Austrian Defense Attache to Italy, Greece, Libya, and Tunisia from 2007 to 2012.