Despite his call for help to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Donald Trump received no support. He promises “very bad consequences” to his NATO allies. A threat even as the Alliance has never been as essential in the face of the brutalization of the world.
NATO is facing a paradoxical moment: politically, its future is clearly threatened, while its strategic utility has never been stronger in the face of the brutalization of the world.
There are currently over 120 armed conflicts in the world, four times more than 30 years ago. The former chief of staff of the French armed forces, Thierry Burkhard, speaks of a “ratchet effect”: crises are not succeeding each other, they are piling up. And today, all indicators are in the red.
Europe confronted with the return of high-intensity warfare
In the East, Russia is waging a long war. While it was said to be weakened, the global energy crisis revives its oil and gas revenues, offering Moscow new financing margins to replenish its weapons stocks. Several European military staffs now consider credible the possibility of high-intensity warfare in Europe before 2030.
In the Middle East, Iran is not collapsing, showing a form of resilience in a climate of permanent escalation. In the Indo-Pacific, after an unusual pause, China has resumed its military intimidation exercises around Taiwan, considered by strategists as the next hotspot on the planet, perhaps as early as 2027.
The world unfolding before our eyes is becoming more brutal, ultimately returning to the conditions that justified the creation of NATO. The Alliance, with its 32 allies, now forms the largest military defense alliance in the world.
American refocusing on the Indo-Pacific at the expense of Europe
The spotlight is on Hormuz, but it is important to remember that for Donald Trump and his war secretary Pete Hegseth, the center of gravity is no longer in Europe but in the Indo-Pacific. Pete Hegseth clarified his thoughts on May 30th in Singapore:
“Our friends in Europe must take more responsibility for their security, invest in defense, and as they share the burden, we can focus more on the Indo-Pacific, which is our top priority. And we are here to stay!”
This reading marks a profound rupture. The United States is shifting its focus, complicating matters for NATO. Because the Alliance has always been based on a simple idea: the United States are the ultimate guarantor of European security.
In just one generation, a geostrategic shift occurred in the Indo-Pacific. In 1995, China and India together accounted for 10% of the global GDP, compared to a third for the European Union. Thirty years later, Europe’s weight has been halved, while China and India’s has tripled. The region now accounts for 40% of global military spending and has signed more than forty defense agreements since 2019. Rearmament there is massive and rapid.
Maintenance of the alliance or major strategic rupture
Faced with the proliferation of conflicts, either Donald Trump maintains the logic of alliance and pushes Europeans to invest more to remain credible. Or he considers the Organization as an unnecessary burden. In that case, Europe would have to ensure its security alone overnight. This scenario would shift Europe into a new world: a world where Donald Trump could, in the name of national security and under the pretext that Greenland belongs to his Western Hemisphere, intervene directly in that territory, disregarding the fact that it is a province of Denmark, a NATO member.
One essential question remains: what happens to NATO when its central pillar, the United States, seems to be undergoing a political transformation? For the first time in 50 years, the United States are no longer seen as a “liberal democracy” but as an “electoral democracy,” according to the V-Dem institute, a Swedish global reference institute that analyzes democracies’ evolution worldwide.
V-Dem explains that America is currently experiencing the fastest “autocratization” episode in the world in the last 25 years: where it took Viktor Orbán, Narendra Modi, or Recep Erdoğan four to ten years to concentrate as much power, Donald Trump succeeded in just one year. In short, NATO is supposed to be the best guarantee against the return of major wars. But it relies on an increasingly undemocratic American ally. And perhaps here lies the deepest threat.
