Frictions have emerged between the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies over the latter’s refusal to support the ongoing Operation Epic Fury against Iran. While Spain in Europe has been the most vocal critic of Donald Trump’s actions, other countries in the region too have expressed displeasure. For example, Britain refused to take part in the operation, while France has denied permission for U.S. fighter jets to use its airspace to fly to Israel. Such tensions, along with Trump’s earlier threat to take control of Greenland, have put severe strain on the functioning of NATO. The latest in this series of actions is Trump’s statement, given to a British newspaper, in which he stated that he was “strongly considering pulling out of NATO” and called it a “paper tiger.”
The U.S., being a principal architect of NATO, has played a crucial role in its organisation, functioning, and expansion. While the National Defense Reauthorization Act, 2023, brought by former President Joe Biden, prohibits pulling out of the alliance without a two-thirds vote of the Senate or approval from Congress, the silence of the U.S. Constitution over the procedure for breaking a treaty leaves ample opportunity for any presidential administration to leverage it. While it might not be possible for the Trump administration to pull the U.S. out of NATO, mere refusal to honour the obligations arising out of this treaty may jeopardise NATO’s existence.
The Origin and Evolution of NATO in the Background of the Soviet and subsequent Russian Threat
NATO traces its origin to the early period of the Cold War, when the U.S., Canada, and 10 other European countries, which felt threatened by the then Soviet Union (USSR), sought to form a military and political alliance in 1949. NATO’s strength lay in its collective security principle, which is enshrined in its Article 5 and states that “an armed attack against a NATO member shall be considered an attack against them all.”
While the Soviet threat subsided with the disbanding of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact and the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the emergence of Russia as a powerful successor state provided a rationale for NATO to continue. Thus, from its earlier strategy of ‘containment’ towards the Soviet Union, it now adopted a renewed mission of stabilization and enlargement to counter the Russian threat. NATO, which initially had twelve members, soon included many East European states that had hitherto acted as buffer states. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Finland and Sweden joined NATO, taking the total strength of the organisation to thirty-two. NATO’s eastward expansion, which was considered necessary to ensure the security of member states, also led to growing unease in Russia, which has generally regarded countries of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Caucasus as its ‘near abroad’, a privileged sphere. Russia’s response to such a threat has included the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the ongoing Ukraine war since 2022. Along with such invasions, Russia’s modus operandi has largely been grey-zone warfare tactics in the rest of Europe, which pose significant costs on NATO countries while falling below the threshold of war.
Russian Influence Operations: Europe and Beyond
Europe, being a primary theatre for Russian influence operations, has seen regular interference in the domestic affairs of countries; such interference has also been accompanied by increasing military incursions, primarily in the form of airspace violations. Beyond Europe, Russian objectives are increasingly sophisticated: presenting itself as a credible mediator in the face of the ongoing war in West Asia, and as a reliable partner in the domain of energy security for countries in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere.
In the European arena, the years following the invasion of Ukraine have been characterised by increasing incidents of airspace violations. While sophisticated drones have been the primary tools of such incursions, occasionally Russian fighter jets too have breached the airspace of NATO member countries. A systemic review conducted by Professor Frederic Lemieux of Georgetown University shows that there has been a steady increase in incursions between 2022 and 2024. He shows that the incidents of violations, which were four in 2022, grew to six in 2024. Moreover, such incidents reached a new height when eighteen violations were recorded in 2025 alone, a 200% surge indicating a dangerous escalation. On one hand, such violations have acted as psychological operations against the member countries; on the other hand, they have been crucial in testing the air defence and toleration threshold of NATO.
Accompanying these incursions is Russian meddling in the domestic affairs of North Atlantic Treaty Organization members. For example, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the first round of the presidential election in December 2024 following intelligence reports of a Russian influence operation. Similar interference was reported earlier in the Moldovan presidential election and the referendum process regarding EU accession.
NATO Minus the United States: Geopolitical Gain for Russia?
As discussed earlier, the U.S. remains crucial to the functioning and survival of NATO. This importance is above and beyond the fact that U.S. contributions across NATO operations account for 62% of total defence spending, and that 50,000 U.S. troops are deployed across thirty bases in Europe. While Europe has increased its military spending and now all thirty-two members meet the criteria of spending 2% of GDP on defence, any potential exit of the U.S. will create gaps that increased defence spending by Europeans may not fix in the near term. Europe relies overwhelmingly on U.S. military assets such as missile defence systems, satellite surveillance, and cyber defence. Under extended nuclear deterrence, the U.S. has provided a nuclear umbrella to Europe; in the absence of such deterrence, Europe will be left to face Russian aggression with the smaller stockpiles of France and the U.K. NATO’s commander is always a four-star U.S. general or admiral; thus, the exit of the U.S. will require a complete restructuring of the military command. Russian activities in Europe, which so far have been limited to ‘probes’ through limited incursions, will gradually become the norm. The absence of deterrence in the wake of a U.S. exit from NATO will also lead to ‘grey zones’ in the bordering regions turning more into ‘buffer zones’, providing a significant geopolitical gain to Russia. U.S. military assets in Europe are not only crucial for regional security but also a crucial logistical tool to project its power in the West Asian region and beyond. Thus, winding these down will weaken the U.S. presence in the Gulf and ultimately enable Russia to enhance its influence in the region.
Conclusion
North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s effectiveness rests on the resolve of member countries to come to each other’s aid when attacked. This belief has so far not only sustained the organisation but also kept a strong check on Russian geopolitical ambitions, particularly in Europe. As Trump signals a shift from this commitment, it will embolden Russia to pursue its ambitions not only in Europe but also in other regions of the world. Thus, any potential exit of the U.S. would constitute a clear-cut geopolitical gain for Russia in Europe and beyond.
By – Nikhil Tiwari, PhD Candidate, Centre for East Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University