The Atlantic Fracture: A Strategic Assessment of the Systematic Dismantling of the NATO Alliance (2017–2025)
Executive Summary
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the cornerstone of Western collective security since 1949, has undergone a process of profound destabilization and structural realignment under the influence of Donald J. Trump. This transformation, spanning from his initial inauguration in 2017 through the aggressive policy shifts of his second term in 2025, represents not merely a period of strained relations but a fundamental "screwing" with the alliance's operating logic. The analysis that follows details how the Trump administration systematically dismantled the assumption of unconditional US security guarantees, replacing the Article 5 mutual defense pact with a transactional model of "protection for payment."
This report argues that the disruption was executed in three distinct phases: the "Shock Therapy" of the first term (2017–2021), the "Delegitimization Campaign" of the interregnum (2021–2024), and the "Structural Liquidation" of the second term (2025). By late 2025, NATO ostensibly remains intact, but its internal cohesion has been shattered. The alliance has been effectively partitioned into a tiered system where security is contingent upon financial compliance, trade balances, and ideological alignment with the "America First" doctrine. The imposition of a 5% GDP defense spending target, the codification of "civilizational erasure" in US strategic doctrine, and the coercion of Ukraine into a partition plan have collectively eroded the trust that underpins extended deterrence. Consequently, Europe has begun a chaotic pivot toward independent nuclear and conventional capabilities, signaling the end of the singular Atlantic security community.
Part I: The Initial Shock—The Transactional Turn (2017–2021)
To understand the radical realignments of 2025, one must first deconstruct the foundational fissures created during the first Trump administration. Unlike previous US administrations, which viewed burden-sharing disputes as family quarrels within a permanent community of values, the Trump administration viewed the alliance itself as a mechanism of economic exploitation—a "bad deal" where "delinquent" Europeans siphoned American prosperity while outsourcing their survival.
1.1 The Rhetorical Assault: "Obsolete" and the Erosion of Legitimacy
The destabilization began immediately upon the administration's ascent to power. The characterization of NATO as "obsolete" during the 2016 campaign and subsequent transition was not mere hyperbole; it was a governing philosophy that stripped the alliance of its moral imperative.1 By framing the alliance as an archaic relic of the Cold War, the President signaled to adversaries, particularly the Russian Federation, that the political will underpinning Article 5 was no longer absolute but conditional.
This rhetorical offensive introduced a new lexicon to transatlantic diplomacy: the language of the landlord-tenant relationship. Allies were frequently described as "delinquent," a term reserved for contract violators rather than sovereign partners.2 This framing shifted the alliance's center of gravity from threat assessment—what dangers do we face together?—to financial accounting—who owes what to whom? The relentless focus on the 2% of GDP defense spending target, agreed upon at the 2014 Wales Summit, was weaponized. Previous administrations viewed the 2% target as a benchmark for capacity building; the Trump administration viewed it as a bill of arrears.3
1.2 The 2018 Brussels Summit Crisis
The strategy of disruption reached its first zenith at the July 2018 NATO Summit in Brussels. This event stands as the psychological turning point for European leaders, the moment when the "unthinkable"—a US withdrawal—became a plausible planning scenario.
Reports confirmed by the President himself reveal that he threatened to withdraw the United States from the alliance entirely if spending targets were not immediately met.2 The President reportedly told G7 leaders that NATO was "as bad as NAFTA," conflating a military alliance with a trade deficit.4 When questioned about the legal feasibility of withdrawing without Congressional approval, the President explicitly stated, "I think I probably can, but that's unnecessary," implying that the threat alone had successfully coerced allies into offering concessions.4
The aftermath of the 2018 summit left a permanent scar on the alliance. For the first time, German, French, and British strategic planners had to model scenarios where the US military backbone of European defense vanished overnight.5 This effectively initiated the "strategic autonomy" debates that would mature, painfully, in the crises of 2025. The administration claimed victory, asserting that the pressure had forced allies to commit an extra $33 billion to defense 6, but the cost was the shattering of the "automaticity" of the US guarantee.
1.3 The Instrumentalization of Force Posture
The administration moved beyond rhetoric by ordering the reduction of US troop levels in Germany in 2020. While publicly framed as a strategic repositioning to Poland and other locations to better address the Russian threat, the move was widely understood in Berlin and Washington as a punitive action against Germany for its trade surplus and failure to meet the 2% target.3
This decision marked a critical evolution in US policy: the instrumentalization of force posture as a tool of economic leverage. By linking the presence of US soldiers—traditionally seen as a stabilizing force for the entire continent—to the bilateral trade balance of a host nation, the administration broke the "firewall" that had traditionally separated economic friction from security cooperation.9 Although these withdrawals were paused and reversed by the Biden administration, the precedent was set: US presence in Europe was conditional, revocable, and tied to the President's personal assessment of a nation's "fairness." This created a new dynamic where nations like Poland, which aligned ideologically and financially with the administration, were rewarded with troop increases (the "Fort Trump" initiative), while "delinquent" nations faced abandonment.8
Part II: The Interregnum and the Campaign of Delegitimization (2021–2024)
The period between Trump's first and second terms saw a temporary restoration of traditional Atlanticism under President Biden, particularly following Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, the shadow of a potential Trump return paralyzed long-term European strategic planning, effectively freezing the alliance in a state of suspended animation. The disruption continued from the sidelines, culminating in a campaign statement that fundamentally altered the calculus of deterrence.
2.1 The "Encourage Russia" Doctrine (February 2024)
The single most damaging moment for NATO's deterrence posture prior to the second term occurred on the campaign trail in February 2024. At a rally in South Carolina, the former President recounted a conversation with a NATO leader who asked if the US would protect them if they hadn't paid their "bills." The response was unequivocal and chilling: "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want".10
This statement, known among analysts as the "Encourage Russia" doctrine, transformed Article 5 from a treaty obligation into a conditional protection racket. It explicitly invited aggression against "delinquent" members, signaling to Moscow that the US nuclear umbrella had gaping holes.11
Strategic Fallout: For European capitals, this was the moment the "Article 5 is sacred" narrative collapsed. It forced the EU to consider a "European pillar" of defense that could function without the US—a nearly impossible task in the short term given the capability gaps.11
Russian Calculation: For the Kremlin, this signaled that a potential conflict with NATO might not necessarily result in a war with the United States, provided the target was a "non-payer" or politically disfavored ally.11
2.2 The Legislative Failure to "Trump-Proof" NATO
Recognizing the volatility of executive commitment, the US Congress attempted to "Trump-proof" the alliance during this period. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 included Section 1250A, prohibiting the President from withdrawing from the North Atlantic Treaty without a two-thirds Senate majority or an Act of Congress.12
While legally robust in preventing a formal exit, this measure failed to address the de facto withdrawal of support. As analysts and Trump advisors noted, a President does not need to formally withdraw from the treaty to render it hollow; they simply need to refuse to order troops into combat when a crisis arises.5 The concept of a "Dormant NATO," advocated by advisors like Sumantra Maitra, envisioned an alliance where the US remains a member on paper but ceases to provide the heavy lifting of logistics and combat power, effectively bypassing the legislative "lock".5
Part III: The Economic Coercion—The Hague Summit (June 2025)
Following his victory in the 2024 election 14, Trump returned to the world stage with a mandate he interpreted as a validation of his "America First" isolationism. The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague became the theater for a radical restructuring of the alliance's financial architecture, moving beyond the 2% debate into a realm of massive economic coercion.
3.1 The 5% Ultimatum and the "Hague Commitment"
Arriving in The Hague, the Trump administration discarded the 2% target as insufficient. The new demand was a staggering 5% of GDP, a figure grounded not in a specific military necessity analysis but in a desire to force European self-reliance through economic shock therapy.15
The administration argued that the 2% target was a relic of a "peace dividend" era and that the US burden—projected to rise significantly—must be matched by Europe.16 Under immense pressure, and facing implied threats of a "dormant" US posture, NATO allies agreed to the "Hague Commitment," pledging to reach 5% defense spending by 2035.17
This agreement was met with a mix of sycophancy and horror. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, adapting to the new reality, praised the deal as a "monumental victory" driven by Trump's leadership, a tactical maneuver to flatter the US President and keep the US in the room.15 However, for many European nations, this target is economically ruinous.
3.2 The Economic Impact of the 5% Target
The shift to a 5% target represents a catastrophic realignment for European social democracies. For countries like Germany, Spain, and Italy, reaching 5% requires dismantling the post-war social contract, slashing funding for healthcare, pensions, and infrastructure to buy weaponry.
Table 1: Projected Economic Impact of the 5% Target on Key European Allies
Country
2023 Spending (% GDP)
2023 Spending ($Bn)
Est. Spending at 5% ($Bn)
Economic & Political Implications
Germany
~1.6%
~$67
~$210
Requires abandoning the "Schwarze Null" (balanced budget); necessitates massive cuts to social welfare; likely political instability.
France
~1.9%
~$61
~$160
Severely destabilizes fiscal balance; forces austerity measures that could trigger widespread civil unrest.
Spain
~1.2%
~$19
~$80
Economically unfeasible without total collapse of social services; PM Sanchez openly labeled it "counterproductive".19
Poland
~3.9%
~$31
~$40
Achievable; aligns with current militarization trajectory; strengthens Poland's position as a "Tier 1" ally.20
Canada
~1.3%
~$27
~$105
Requires a quadrupling of the defense budget, fundamentally altering the Canadian federal budget structure.16
Source: Derived from economic projections and snippet data.16
The 5% demand serves a dual purpose: it recapitalizes Western defense, but it also weakens the European Union's cohesion. Nations like Spain openly dissented, leading Trump to label Spain a "problem" and threaten specific tariffs.19 This creates a tiered alliance: "Tier 1" militarized states (Poland, Baltics) that align with Trump, and "Tier 2" welfare states (Western Europe) that are effectively penalized and marginalized.
3.3 The "Infrastructure" Loophole
To make the 5% pill easier to swallow, the Hague deal included a crucial concession: a clause allowing 1.5% of that target to cover "dual-use" infrastructure like roads, bridges, ports, and cyber resilience.17 While this allowed leaders to sell the package domestically as "investment," it muddied the military utility of the spending. This clause creates a massive accounting loophole that the Trump administration can later exploit to accuse allies of "cheating" again—perpetuating the cycle of grievance whenever politically convenient.
3.4 The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA) and Protectionism
The disruption of NATO was not just about allied spending; it was about re-industrializing the US defense base at the expense of allies. In July 2025, the Trump administration signed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA), a legislative juggernaut that linked US defense spending to aggressive protectionism.21
The $150 Billion Surge: The OBBBA authorized an additional $150 billion in US defense spending, separate from the standard budget, pushing the total toward $1 trillion.21 This included specific funding for the "Golden Dome" missile defense system, nuclear recapitalization ($10.8 billion), and a revitalization of shipbuilding.22
The Siphon Effect: Crucially, this spending surge was coupled with strict "Buy American" provisions. By demanding European allies spend 5% of GDP while simultaneously restricting their access to the US market and subsidizing US competitors, the administration ensured that European defense budgets would largely flow to US contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
Market Reaction: However, the policy had unintended consequences. The demand for sheer volume of armaments drove European nations to invest in their own champions. German contractor Rheinmetall saw its value soar as it became a "global defense champion," suggesting that Trump's policies inadvertently jump-started a competitive European Defense Industrial Base (EDIB), further fragmenting the transatlantic market into rival blocs.23
3.5 Tariff Warfare as Alliance Management
By late 2025, the administration had fully conflated trade imbalances with security threats. The reimposition of Section 232 tariffs on European steel and aluminum was justified on national security grounds, treating NATO allies as economic adversaries.24 The EU was forced to prepare countermeasures, creating a "schizophrenic" relationship where Brussels and Washington were military allies but engaged in an active trade war. This eroded the "economic interoperability" of the alliance, making joint procurement and industrial cooperation increasingly difficult.
Part IV: The Ideological Divorce—The 2025 National Security Strategy
If the Hague Summit was the financial restructuring of NATO, the release of the new National Security Strategy (NSS) in December 2025 was the ideological severance. This document, described by analysts as "nightmarish" and a "shocking wake-up call," codified a view of Europe not as a partner, but as a decaying civilization incompatible with the new American ethos.26
4.1 The Doctrine of "Civilizational Erasure"
The 2025 NSS explicitly states that Europe faces "civilizational erasure" due to migration, "cratering birthrates," and a "loss of national identities".26 This rhetoric, mirroring the "Great Replacement" theory, aligns the US government with Europe's far-right nationalist movements and against the mainstream liberal consensus of the EU.
Interference in Internal Affairs: The strategy proposes to "cultivate resistance" within the EU against "censorious" governments, effectively declaring political war on the mainstream leadership of Germany, France, and the EU Commission.30
Picking Winners: The NSS identifies "like-minded" nations—specifically naming Hungary, Poland, and Italy—as preferred partners, bypassing the EU and NATO structures to build bilateral ties with ideologically aligned governments.31 This effectively attempts to fracture NATO into a "MAGA-aligned" bloc and a "Liberal" bloc, undermining the political unity required for consensus-based decision-making.
4.2 The "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine
The NSS formally pivots the United States away from Europe and toward the Western Hemisphere. The "Trump Corollary" declares the Americas as the primary theater of US interest, focusing on border security, cartels, and limiting Chinese influence in Latin America.18
Implication for NATO: The document explicitly states, "The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over".32 This serves as a doctrinal justification for reducing US troop presence in Europe (unless paid for) and shifting resources to the Mexican border and the Caribbean.
Abandonment of Values: The NSS abandons the promotion of democracy as a US interest, replacing it with strictly transactional "commercial diplomacy".33 This removes the shared moral foundation of NATO, reducing it to a mere military service contract.
Part V: The Ukrainian Crucible—Coercion and Partition (Late 2025)
The most immediate and operational disruption of NATO in late 2025 centered on the war in Ukraine. The Trump administration's drive to force a peace deal revealed the extent to which the US was willing to bypass NATO consensus, ignore the sovereignty of a partner nation, and validate Russian conquest to achieve a "win."
5.1 The 28-Point Peace Plan
By December 2025, the Trump administration, led by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, presented a "take it or leave it" peace plan to Kyiv and Moscow.34 The plan was a radical departure from the "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" principle that had guided NATO policy since 2022.
Territorial Concessions: The plan creates a ceasefire along current front lines, effectively ceding occupied territory to Russia indefinitely.35
NATO Exclusion: It explicitly bars Ukraine from NATO membership, conceding a core Russian strategic demand and effectively granting Moscow a veto over NATO expansion.35
The "Peace Council": Enforcement is not monitored by the UN or NATO, but by a "Peace Council" headed by Donald Trump himself, personalizing the security architecture and removing it from international institutional oversight.35
Amnesty: The plan includes a controversial amnesty clause for all parties involved in the conflict, effectively shielding Russian leadership from war crimes prosecution.35
5.2 Coercing Zelenskyy
When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hesitated, refusing to concede territory and demanding security guarantees, Trump publicly attacked him. The US President claimed Zelenskyy "isn't ready" and accused him of not reading the proposal.36 This public undermining of an ally during wartime—while simultaneously engaging in "friendly" talks with Vladimir Putin—demonstrated to all NATO members that US support could turn into hostility if US dictates were not followed instantly.
The administration also leveraged military aid, suggesting that the flow of weapons would cease if Kyiv did not come to the table, effectively forcing Ukraine to negotiate at gunpoint—with the gun held by its supposed ally.38
5.3 Fracture: The "Coalition of the Willing"
In response to this US pressure and the perceived abandonment of Ukraine, a fissure opened within NATO. A "Coalition of the Willing"—led by the UK, France, Poland, and including Nordic states—began discussing security guarantees for Ukraine outside of the US framework.39
The Weimar Triangle Revival: The "Weimar Triangle" format (France, Germany, Poland) was revived as a primary engine for European security coordination, bypassing the paralyzed NATO structures.41
Post-American Security: This marks the beginning of a "post-American" security architecture in Europe, where key NATO members organize collective defense actions specifically to hedge against US abandonment or US-forced capitulation.
Part VI: The Nuclear Aftershocks—The End of Extended Deterrence
Perhaps the most profound "screwing" with NATO was the erosion of trust in the US nuclear umbrella. By late 2025, the certainty of American nuclear retaliation to defend Tallinn, Warsaw, or Berlin had evaporated, triggering a scramble for independent European deterrents.
6.1 The German Nuclear Debate
In a historic shift for a nation deeply committed to non-proliferation, German Chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz began openly discussing the need for a "European nuclear deterrent." Merz questioned whether the US umbrella was still reliable in the face of Trump's "America First" doctrine and suggested that Germany must seek nuclear security guarantees from London and Paris.10 This acknowledgment—that Berlin no longer trusts Washington to trade New York for Berlin—signifies a total collapse of the psychological component of extended deterrence.
6.2 The Northwood Declaration (July 2025)
Anticipating this vacuum, France and the UK signed the "Northwood Declaration" in July 2025. This agreement declared that their independent nuclear forces could be "coordinated" for European defense.44 Dubbed "Lancaster House 2.0," this declaration represents a direct response to the "Trump Gap"—an attempt to cobble together a European deterrent to replace the unreliable American one. It signals a shift from NATO-centric nuclear planning to a Euro-centric model.
6.3 Poland's Nuclear Ambitions
Poland, feeling the existential threat from Russia most acutely and mistrusting the "Western European" deterrent as much as the American one, began lobbying aggressively for "Nuclear Sharing" or even independent capabilities. President Andrzej Duda publicly stated that if the US won't deploy nukes to Poland, Warsaw might need to look elsewhere or consider its own options.46
Table 2: The Proliferation of Distrust - Nuclear Realignments in 2025
Nation
Pre-2017 Stance
2025 Stance
Strategic implication
Germany
Reliance on US B-61s
Seeking Euro-deterrent
Break in transatlantic nuclear bond.
France
Independent
"coordinated" Euro-defense
France assumes leadership of EU defense.
UK
NATO-assigned
"coordinated" Euro-defense
UK reintegrates into Euro-security despite Brexit.
Poland
Non-Nuclear Host
Demanding Nuclear Sharing
Potential for localized arms race.
Trump's disruption has thus sparked the early stages of a nuclear arms race within the alliance and potentially undermined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime in Europe.
Part VII: Structural Legacy—From Alliance to Transaction
By the end of 2025, Donald Trump had not technically withdrawn the United States from NATO. Instead, he had done something arguably more transformative: he had hollowed out its spirit and rewritten its operating system.
7.1 The End of Automaticity
The "sacred" obligation of Article 5 has been replaced by Conditional Defense. Every NATO member now understands that US intervention is contingent on a complex matrix of factors:
Financial Good Standing: Meeting the 5% target.17
Trade Balance: Not running a "unfair" surplus with the US.48
Ideological Alignment: Not being part of the "civilizational erasure" (i.e., opposing "woke" policies).31
Bilateral Favor: Maintaining a positive personal relationship with the President.
7.2 The Rise of Transactional Bilateralism
The Trump administration prefers bilateral deals over multilateral consensus. The "One Big Beautiful Bill," the bilateral pressure on Ukraine, and the courting of specific leaders (Orban, Meloni, Duda) over EU institutions 31 have fragmented the alliance. NATO meetings are no longer forums for consensus but marketplaces for bidding on US favor. The alliance has become a "hub-and-spoke" model where all roads lead to Washington, but few lead to each other.
7.3 The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of "Civilizational Decline"
By forcing Europe to divert massive resources from social infrastructure to defense (the 5% target) and by attacking the ideological foundations of the EU (the NSS), Trump has accelerated the very instability he criticizes. He has "screwed" with NATO not just by weakening it militarily vis-a-vis Russia, but by poisoning the political ecosystem that allows European democracies to function as stable partners. The "civilizational erasure" he warns of is arguably being hastened by the dismantling of the security architecture that protected that civilization for 75 years.
Conclusion: The "Dormant" NATO
By late 2025, the vision proposed by Trump advisors of a "dormant NATO" 5 has largely been realized. NATO survives as a logistical framework—a set of standardized rail gauges and ammunition calibers—but it is no longer a political community or a guaranteed security pact. The United States has retreated to a "Western Hemisphere First" posture, treating Europe as a buffer zone that must pay for its own protection.
The "screwing" of NATO was a systematic process of stripping away the layers of trust, automaticity, and shared values that transformed a treaty into an alliance. In its place stands a transactional protection racket, where security is a service to be bought, not a right to be defended. Europe, faced with a revisionist Russia to the East and an indifferent America to the West, stands alone in a way it has not since 1939.
Works cited
100 Days of the Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: Global Chaos, American Weakness, and Human Suffering, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-days-of-the-trump-administrations-foreign-policy-global-chaos-american-weakness-and-human-suffering/
Trump Confirms He Threatened to Withdraw from NATO - Atlantic Council, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/trump-confirms-he-threatened-to-withdraw-from-nato/
Donald Trump and the battle of the two percent - DIIS, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.diis.dk/en/research/donald-trump-and-the-battle-of-the-two-percent
Trump claims victory as Nato summit descends into mayhem - The Guardian, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/12/donald-trump-nato-summit-chaos-germany-attack-defence-spending
The Trump card: What could US abandonment of Europe look like?, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/trump-card-what-could-us-abandonment-europe-look
Could Trump pull US out of Nato and what would happen if he did? - The Guardian, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/12/trump-nato-threat-withdraw-what-would-happen
Did Trump Threaten to Pull U.S. out of NATO? President Touts $33 Billion in Extra Funding from Allies - Newsweek, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nato-threaten-pull-us-33-billion-extra-funding-allies-1020104
With the Germany withdrawal, Poland is set to be hosting a lot more US troops, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/08/04/with-the-germany-withdrawal-poland-is-set-to-be-hosting-a-lot-more-us-troops/
Europe on Trump's Chopping Block - International Centre for Defence and Security, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://icds.ee/en/europe-on-trumps-chopping-block/
Can France and the United Kingdom Replace the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella? - CSIS, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/can-france-and-united-kingdom-replace-us-nuclear-umbrella
Pre-ministerial press conference | NATO Transcript, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/transcripts/2025/02/12/pre-ministerial-press-conference
The North Atlantic Treaty: U.S. Legal Obligations and Congressional Authorities, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11256
Kaine & Rubio Applaud Senate Passage of Their Bipartisan Bill to Prevent Any U.S. President from Leaving NATO, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/kaine-and-rubio-applaud-senate-passage-of-their-bipartisan-bill-to-prevent-any-us-president-from-leaving-nato
accessed on December 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#:~:text=Trump%20won%20the%20Electoral%20College,by%20a%20Republican%20since%202004.
President Trump's Leadership, Vision Drives NATO Breakthrough - The White House, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/president-trumps-leadership-vision-drives-nato-breakthrough/
Trump's Five Percent Doctrine and NATO Defense Spending | PIIE, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/trumps-five-percent-doctrine-and-nato-defense-spending
NATO leaders agree to hike military spending and restate 'ironclad commitment' to collective defense if attacked - PBS, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/nato-leaders-agree-to-hike-military-spending-and-restate-ironclad-commitment-to-collective-defense-if-attacked
Experts react: What Trump's National Security Strategy means for US foreign policy, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-what-trumps-national-security-strategy-means-for-us-foreign-policy/
Updates: NATO members agree on higher defence spending target - Al Jazeera, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/6/25/live-nato-leaders-expected-to-agree-on-new-defence-spending-target
No sign of US troop reduction in Poland despite Romania cuts, officials say - TVP World, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://tvpworld.com/89737661/poland-no-sign-of-us-troop-cuts-despite-romania-reduction
The U.S. continues to underinvest in defense, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/09/ndaa-defense-war-authorization-bill-hegseth/
One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes $150B investment in Defense, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2025/07/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-makes-150b-investment-in-defense/
German armsmaker wins big from Trump's NATO spending demands, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/07/rheinmettal-germany-weapons-defense-industry/
Trump 2.0 tariff tracker - Trade Compliance Resource Hub, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2025/12/09/trump-2-0-tariff-tracker/
Steel meets fire: How the EU might respond to Trump's tariffs - Atlantic Council, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/steel-meets-fire-how-the-eu-might-respond-to-trumps-tariffs/
Trump warns of European 'civilizational erasure' in realigned national security strategy, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/12/05/trump-europe-russia-national-security-strategy/
Trump’s Terrifying New Security Doctrine Turns Canada into a Target, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://thewalrus.ca/trumps-terrifying-new-security-doctrine-turns-allies-into-targets/
The National Security Strategy: The Good, the Not So Great, and the Alarm Bells - CSIS, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/national-security-strategy-good-not-so-great-and-alarm-bells
Unpacking a Trump Twist of the National Security Strategy, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/unpacking-trump-twist-national-security-strategy
European Council president warns US not to interfere in Europe’s affairs, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/08/europe-leaders-no-longer-deny-relationship-with-us-changed
‘Make Europe Great Again’ and more from a longer version of the National Security Strategy, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/12/make-europe-great-again-and-more-longer-version-national-security-strategy/410038/
Trump National Security Strategy puts ending Russia-Ukraine war as ‘core interest’, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense/3908503/trump-national-security-stategy-ending-russia-ukraine-war/
Europe Needs to Hear What America is Saying, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2025/12/europe-needs-to-hear-what-america-is-saying?lang=en
Trump advisers and Ukrainian officials will meet for third day amid progress on peace plan, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/ukraine-russia-trump-peace-plan
Trump's 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full - Sky News, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://news.sky.com/story/trumps-28-point-ukraine-peace-plan-in-full-including-land-kyiv-must-hand-to-russia-and-when-elections-must-be-held-13473491
Zelensky Responds To Trump’s Ukraine Peace Push; ‘Won’t Surrender' | Watch, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/international/zelensky-responds-to-trumps-ukraine-peace-push-wont-surrender-watch/videoshow/125873838.cms
Ukraine war live: Number 10 says Europe must ‘ramp up’ economic pressure on Russia after Zelenskyy meeting – as it happened, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/dec/08/ukraine-zelenskyy-starmer-merz-macron-london-trump-russia-europe-news-latest-updates
Ukrainian officials expected to present new peace proposals to U.S. negotiators, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukrainian-officials-expected-to-present-new-peace-proposals-to-u-s-negotiators
Hungary monthly briefing: The Weimar triangle and the Coalition of the Willing: European regional.. - China-CEE Institute, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://china-cee.eu/2025/07/24/hungary-monthly-briefing-the-weimar-triangle-and-the-coalition-of-the-willing-european-regional-cooperation-alternatives-in-2025/
Peacemaking: yet again a dangerous time for European security, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.friendsofeurope.org/insights/critical-thinking-peacemaking-yet-again-a-dangerous-time-for-european-security/
Joint statement by the Ministers for European Affairs of the Weimar Triangle, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/weimar-triangle-2690460
The Weimar Triangle: Time for Concrete Action? | Institute of New Europe, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://ine.org.pl/en/the-weimar-triangle-time-for-concrete-action/
Is Europe Moving to an Independent Nuclear Deterrent? | Arms Control Association, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2025-05/features/europe-moving-independent-nuclear-deterrent
The European dimension of deterrence: prospects for cooperation | Foundation for Strategic Research, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/recherches-et-documents/european-dimension-deterrence-prospects-cooperation-2025
Reading between the lines of the new France-UK nuclear entente - Atlantic Council, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/reading-between-the-lines-of-the-new-france-uk-nuclear-entente/
Poland wants US nuclear weapons to deter Russia, will Trump grant request? - YouTube, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WsP9RAO0Ds
Poland's President Duda calls for U.S. to deploy nuclear weapons in his nation - CBS News, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poland-president-duda-us-nuclear-weapons-deploy/
The EU's Possible Response to Trump II Tariffs, accessed on December 10, 2025, https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2025/03/the-eus-possible-response-to-trump-ii-tariffs/
