A quiet crisis is unfolding within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a challenge that extends far beyond recent political rhetoric. While headlines focus on demands for increased financial contributions, a more fundamental imbalance threatens the alliance’s core strength: an overreliance on American military power.
The issue isn’t simply about money, though allied defense budgets have long lagged behind expectations. It’s about capability. A growing gap exists between NATO’s commitments – now encompassing 32 nations – and the actual military strength available to fulfill them. The alliance has expanded in scope, but not necessarily in genuine fighting power.
Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, a former senior national security official, vividly described the problem. He recalled advising President Trump on the need for a “tiered relationship” within NATO, advocating for a fundamental realignment. The current structure, he argues, is “bloated,” with many nations possessing forces that are simply not equipped to respond to a major conflict.
The stark reality, according to Kellogg, is that many European defense industries have “atrophied.” He points to the United Kingdom, struggling to maintain even basic operational readiness with its limited deployable forces and aircraft carriers perpetually undergoing maintenance. This isn’t an isolated case; it’s a symptom of widespread underinvestment.
However, the narrative isn’t one of impending collapse. John R. Deni, a research professor at the U.S. Army War College, argues that NATO remains profoundly relevant, particularly as a strategic advantage against both China and Russia. He emphasizes the unique value of the alliance – a structure neither adversary can replicate.
Furthermore, NATO underpins the crucial economic relationship between North America and Europe, fostering stability and security that facilitates trade and investment. This interconnectedness is a cornerstone of global prosperity.
Historically, the United States has shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden. By 2010, American defense spending accounted for roughly 65-70% of the entire NATO total. This dependence isn’t new, but it’s become increasingly unsustainable as global challenges mount.
The alliance operates on a principle of pooled resources, where collective strength is meant to exceed the sum of its parts. While allies contribute ground forces, the U.S. provides critical “high-end capabilities” – the advanced technologies and systems that define modern warfare.
This asymmetry is most pronounced in nuclear deterrence. The vast majority of NATO’s nuclear arsenal – including ICBMs, submarine-launched systems, and strategic bombers – resides within the United States. The entire deterrent posture rests on the assumption of American retaliation.
A NATO official acknowledged this imbalance, stating that while the U.S. nuclear deterrent is irreplaceable, Europe must “step up” to achieve a more equitable balance. The good news, the official added, is that allies are actively increasing their investments and working collaboratively with the U.S.
Beyond nuclear weapons, the U.S. provides essential intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as critical logistics and command systems. Without these, NATO’s situational awareness and early warning systems would be severely compromised, leaving Europe vulnerable to attack.
Kellogg contends that much of Europe’s existing military equipment is simply outmatched. He describes it as largely “B players or C players,” lacking the cutting-edge technology needed to compete with potential adversaries. Air and missile defense systems, in particular, are heavily reliant on U.S.-made components.
However, the situation is evolving. Defense spending has increased significantly since 2022, spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. European nations are now acquiring advanced U.S. systems, such as the F-35 fighter jet, though the full benefits of these investments will take years to materialize.
NATO is responding with ambitious new capability targets, aiming for a fivefold increase in air and missile defense, thousands more armored vehicles, and millions more artillery shells. Investments in warships, aircraft, drones, and cyber capabilities are also being prioritized.
These targets are being incorporated into national plans, requiring sustained defense spending and a commitment to modernization. European allies are already leading multinational forces in Eastern Europe, demonstrating a growing willingness to take on greater responsibility.
Kellogg’s warning is stark: NATO’s deterrence hinges on continued U.S. presence. If American forces are stretched thin elsewhere, the alliance could face critical vulnerabilities, particularly in intelligence and logistics. The danger, he emphasizes, lies in complacency.
Deni offers a more optimistic outlook, asserting that NATO remains a strategic asset. The crucial question, he suggests, is not whether the alliance still works, but whether its members can adapt quickly enough to ensure its continued effectiveness in a rapidly changing world.
