Part VI of the Special Series GLOBAL ALLIANCE AND POWER STRUCTURE: a collaboration between WGI.WORLD (World Geostrategic Insights) and CGPS (Center for Global Peace and Security).
By Sunny Lee – Founder and President at CGPS (Center for Global Peace and Security), and Director at IKUPD (Institute for Korea-U.S. Political Development), Washington DC.
NATO has faced critical dilemmas such as viewing its original mission and function that it should completely defeat Russia’s military expansion towards member countries of NATO.
In addition, it should surely establish an independent security structure focusing on European military reinforcement beyond U.S. influence. At this point, the NATO-EU Nexus as the pillar of peace and security explores the most prospective vision for European security independence not only to deter Russia’s expansion but also to compromise U.S. military hegemony in Europe.
NATO is changing its military defense status in association with the EU as a strategic player, taking over the U.S. role. Especially since European countries worried about a revanchist Russia and an unexpectedly transactional situation caused by the United States, they have worked on parallel tracks together for their own deterrence and defense. The EU becomes so crucial and proactive to bolster Europe’s defense by strengthening NATO’s function.
Most European countries would severely lack vital interoperability because of infrastructural bottlenecks and regulatory inconsistencies hurdling military mobility. Right after World War II, the United States started to support European countries’ reconstruction through NATO and the Marshall Plan. As a result, instead of military armament, they largely invested to flourish economic prosperity and consequently failed to acquire critical military capability. As well, it brought highly fragmented technological gaps with the shortage of defense stocks to compete on the global stage far behind defense innovation and achievement.
For example, even though France and the United Kingdom are among five nuclear countries, they haven’t concentrated on developing advanced nuclear technologies or produced further nuclear weapons. They just kept around 200 nuclear warheads compared to Russia and the U.S. with 6,000 each. However, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK has reshaped nuclear strategy by strengthening military capacity to deliver nuclear weapons from the air for national security. The UK confirmed to purchase 12 nuclear-carrying F-35A fighter jets and voluntarily joined NATO’s Dual-Capable Aircraft mission with tactical nuclear forces.
On the other hand, Trump’s transformative gesture with Putin as pushing away Zelensky stimulated France to propel nuclear rearmament. France even offered nuclear umbrella to Germany and Poland with 40 Dassault Rafale fighter aircrafts for the delivery of nuclear weapons. France’s new Dassault Rafale F5, Super Rafale with hypersonic weapons would be competitive until the FCAS with the Next Generation Weapon System (NGWS) launches in the 2040s. France invests $2.2 billion for nuclear development and advocates an independent nuclear umbrella in Europe, which will influence geopolitical dynamics and shake the security structure.
On July 10, 2025, the France President Macron and the Prime Minister of the UK Starmer announced a UK-France joint declaration for nuclear deterrence in Europe. It signifies two nuclear peers’ strategy to reinforce the overall security environment, potentially removing more US conventional military assets from Europe. The UK and France will play such an evolutionary role to fulfill their long-standing and resolute strategy through nuclear cooperation.
NATO’s Mission and Role
NATO, with 32 member countries, was founded on April 4, 1949, initially to block the expansion of the USSR, which controlled East Germany as a communist country and had quickly annexed most of its satellite countries.
The Soviet Union ventured toward Western Germany during the Berlin Blockade on June 24, 1948-May 12, 1949, where the U.S., the UK, and France conducted its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Soviet Union applied for NATO membership in 1954 while emphasizing its dedicative role to the European security environment after communist dictator Stalin died. The proposal was returned and the Soviet Union established the Warsaw Pact with 8 satellite countries on May 15, 1955 right after Western Germany joined NATO. As a result, the Soviet Union pressed democratic movement in Eastern Europe and sharpened the Cold War by increasing military expenditure. Ironically, all countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact except Russia joined NATO after the USSR was dismantled around 1990.
However, since Russia returned to Eastern Europe through Ukraine as the most threatening country with belligerent ambition in the 21st century, the security environment in Europe has dramatically changed its fundamental components. Notably, NATO’s innovative mission and role would become a cornerstone to coordinate and execute joint operations across member countries. NATO maintains strategic cohesion and operational preparation to conduct a vital purpose in ensuring collective security through its roles, reforms, and future challenges.
NATO’s military command structure is a complex system designed to ensure coordinated defense capacity between member countries. It also promotes unity and efficiency in implementing collective defense policies as the key role of military commands. As managing NATO operations worldwide, it consists of specialized commands such as Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT). They cooperate to ensure NATO remains adaptable and prepared for evolving security challenges. Moreover, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) is responsible for NATO’s military operations within Europe as well as surrounding regions. This role involves strategic decisions, overseeing joint military initiatives and ensuring interoperability with strategic objectives among members.
Furthermore, recent reforms within NATO’s military command structure aim to enhance efficiency, flexibility, and responsiveness. It includes the reorganization of joint force commands and the integration of new capabilities to direct evolving threats. Such adjustments are designed to reinforce NATO’s military strategy to respond to future security challenges such as hybrid warfare or cyber threats. NATO’s future prospect also aims to prepare further modernization of command frameworks based on greater interoperability. NATO continuously reviews its command structure while maintaining operational effectiveness and preparedness in an unpredictable security environment. These procedures dedicate strategic foresight and flexibility, helping NATO overcome existing challenges by leveraging the strengths of its military command structure and manage future operational demands effectively.
U.S. Strategic Balance in Europe
Currently, Trump’s harsh commitment about NATO as well as chauvinistic security strategy for US power strike European allies in shock and perplex. Especially, Trump administration considers European allies as weak and reasserts US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. For example, the United States is seeking a stubborn broker role based on its vital national interests to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, although NATO and the EU support Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.
On March 9, 2025, the White House released Trump’s new national security strategy which elevates “America First” doctrine and sets out the realignment of US foreign policy. It ranges from shifting military resources to taking an unprecedentedly confrontational posture toward Europe. U.S. strategic balance focuses on a few areas to reinforce its national power, despite the preference of long-standing allies in Europe. Especially, Trump favors nonintervention foreign policy and prioritizes U.S. interests while undermining traditional concepts of alliance and military cooperation. The U.S. is rapidly transforming its critical structure of security architecture based on American priority.
First, it is a great shift in the Middle East. The Trump administration’s transnationalism marks a significant adventure to Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the region. Trump highlights his ambition as a peacemaker and unifier instead of adopting an isolation policy. Nonetheless, Trump is reshaping the Middle East in speed as striking deals with many countries. When Trump announced his decision to lift sanctions from Syria, Israelis became absolutely frightened because Netanyahu had asked Trump not to lift sanctions. In addition, Trump focuses more on economic relations with Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar against Israel.
Second, it is a strategic rebalance of U.S. relationship with China in Asia as a great power rivalry. Although Trump has overturned free trade policies with his sweeping global tariffs, US ties with China have been a prime focus. In particular, Trump strives to rebalance the U.S.-China relations while countering China’s aggressive stance towards Taiwan and preventing an upcoming war. As maintaining a military advantage over China, the U.S. simultaneously prefers allies in the region to push back against China’s belligerent pressure and contribute more to collective defense.
Third, it is a strategic stability with Russia in Eastern Europe. The U.S. asserts that the Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s external dependencies. In addition, even though the European majority pursues peace, it is not translated into a policy because of overwhelming subversion of democratic processes. As a result, US-backed efforts could be a priority that an end to hostilities is needed to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish stability with Russia.
Fourth, it is an enhanced strategic balance in Europe. Especially, the 2026 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) has taken the center stage of European architecture at the most volatile security environment. Since Russia continued massacre in Ukraine and intensified cross-border pressure on NATO members, the US Congress has used the defense authorization process. It reasserts European stability, signaling to allies and rivals that the House-approved NDAA surpasses $900 billion in long-term deterrence.
The NDAA establishes a base of approximately 76,000 U.S. personnel deployed or assigned to the European battlefields and manages detailed justification. These provisions are designed as long-term guardrails that operate independently while embodying stability. The troop mandates could be also critically aligned with NATO’s updated regional defense strategy, depending on a predictable US presence. They are considered as strategic insulation that stabilizes planning for the 2025–2027 alliance cycle.
Nevertheless, Trump criticizes that Europe has lacked self-confidence in compromising a deteriorating relationship with Russia. The U.S. is the only power able to mediate or mitigate the risk of conflict between European countries and Russia by reestablishing conditions of strategic stability. Trump frequently emphasizes that Europe’s current trajectory should be on the basis of military enhancement and strategic independence because Europe has taken advantage of the United States for free.
European Military Structure and Regional Security
The future security architecture through NATO exposes two fundamental dilemmas for European strategic autonomy. It is to signify independence from US military hegemony and simultaneously, reinforce its coherence by mutual cooperation with EU’s military capacity for regional security. Most military powers in NATO are also members of the EU as the next target of Russia, which is concentrated on building up an autonomous defense structure.
According to Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), defense spending in the EU has been rising significantly as global threats intensify, coupled with faltering such continual support from the U.S. for European security. EU countries will reach $460 billion in defense in 2025 that Germany with 26.4% and France with 17.4% accounted for $44% of this total. Related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a major turning point, it has threatened Europe’s long-term stability that the possibility of Russian further invasion would be an increasingly real risk.
NATO members agreed to ramp up defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 in response to unprecedented pressure from the U.S., aiming to spend 3.5% of output on core defense and 1.5% for wider security infrastructure. As a result, although the U.S. contributes 16% of NATO annual budget $5.4 billion in 2025, total defense spending among NATO allies increases by more than 15% that collective expenditures rise to $1.6 trillion, figuring out a new military alliance structure.
On December 5, 2025, the United States set the 2027 Deadline for Europe-led NATO defense that Europe takes over the majority of NATO’s defense capabilities ranging from intelligence to missiles. This shifting from the U.S. to European members of NATO dramatically shows how the United States works with its important military allies. If Europe does not fulfill the 2027 Deadline, the U.S. would stop participating in NATO defense coordination mechanisms. Even though European allies have taken more responsibility for regional security, Trump insists that Putin will attack NATO countries unless their fair share of defense becomes guaranteed. But the EU has set a target of making Europe defend itself by 2030 and it will fill up gaps such as air defenses, drones, cyber warfare capabilities, munitions and other areas.
Europe is now at a critical juncture in its security evolution, prompting a reshaping of defense budgets, strategic alliances, and security doctrines with three fundamental pillars: NATO’s collective defense capabilities, EU’s diplomatic and economic influence, and the diverse engagement of European countries. This collaborative framework creates a resilient and adaptive structure that safeguards regional security and stability.
When many European countries joined both NATO and the EU between 1995 and 2024, their relationship became more critical and reinforced. NATO would be considered as a core organization to lead collective defense, while the EU strives for more strategic autonomy in defense matters. A stronger European pillar in NATO as centered on the EU, would shift a larger part of the burden of transatlantic security towards the European NATO allies when the U.S. prioritizes security in other regions. European strategic autonomy should be prepared for such a drastic change as an EU objective in itself. So far, the European security environment has been sustained largely based on a military competence since the U.S. led NATO, providing nuclear deterrence to its European allies against Russia.
However, US disengagement from Europe is likely to push the UK back towards the European security structure even after Brexit. France, the only EU country with nuclear weapons, has also promoted its strategic autonomy based on stronger cooperation that France and the UK take over leadership of European NATO. They change their nuclear doctrines and capacity, extending nuclear guarantees to the rest of Europe. A joint French-British supreme command works closely with indispensable defense countries such as Germany and Poland. European NATO members substantially increase their military capacity such as satellites, air defense and lifting capacity to substitute US troops. As well, Poland as a part of the ‘Weimar Triangle’ with France and Germany willingly accepts its strategic autonomy. Germany is also a strong supporter of transatlantic security by leading European defense cooperation.
There is a possible scenario for a new European security architecture through NATO, the EU, and the OSCE (Organization on Security and Cooperation) as a geopolitical actor. They strengthen not only their military capacity including nuclear and space with technological adventures but also bolster the European defense network. Especially, by developing strategic autonomy, the EU enhances its transatlantic ties with NATO for European security. While laying the foundation of arms control and disarmament for a more cooperative and peaceful world, dormant OSCE structures are revived and enhanced, facilitating the reunification of a neutral Ukraine. Disarmament negotiations also aim to revive the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and initiate new agreements to reduce nuclear weapons worldwide. Consequently, the EU and NATO contribute to a necessary level of self-defense, confirming European security structure.
No More Military Alliance without Enemy
NATO and EU’s strategic autonomy has long been considered critically by the U.S. and NATO allies which feared whether it might weaken the position of NATO. But it is progressively changing, whereas the EU pillar in NATO has gained broad acceptance. European strength in the transatlantic alliance is a key, both where the U.S. fully remains in Europe or where they are inclined to lead by themselves. It also requires a constructive approach from the U.S. towards development of the EU as a strategically autonomous defense player. A shared transatlantic vision would be centered on means, capabilities, technology and industrial development, as well as the political will to implement it.
Therefore, in case of a strong US disengagement, European NATO or the European Defense Union (EDU) should be reinforced as European strategic autonomy would be no longer a choice but a necessity. Although the costs of developing capacity for possibly new decision-making structures may be high, such alternatives will increase European autonomy. As a result, it will be not a risk but potentially an opportunity, provided that Europeans succeed in reorganizing themselves without US leadership.
Currently, the deepest perception of what would be the most desirable European security architecture lies between Russia and the majority of NATO allies. While European NATO allies and EU countries might be united in addressing this challenge, they also have to understand each other’s constraints and perceptions to advance together. At this point, further enemy in Europe after NATO and the EU completely defeat Russia by supporting Ukraine will no longer exist and military alliance would be unnecessary as it is. At the moment while the U.S. focuses on its national security strategy, Europe could be more independent and autonomous beyond military power structure. Then, the United States will meet European NATO and the EU allies in a peaceful security environment without fearing an upcoming war.
Author: Sunny Lee – Founder and President at CGPS (Center for Global Peace and Security), and Director at IKUPD (Institute for Korea – U.S. Political Development), Washington DC. Sunny Lee is the author of 115 academic books in politics (original English and in German, French, Russian, Polish, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese). She is a bestseller writer not only in politics but also in literature on Amazon. Her recent book is titled: “The Influence on Humankind’s Peace through Korean Reunification: Creating new paradigm in social science by interdisciplinary research.”
(The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).
Image Source: NATO