NATO - The Alliance Structure Remains but the Dependency Has Inverted
The US has cut back fighter jets available to NATO from 150 to 100, maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15, and all 8 aerial refueling tankers have left the European theater.
This drawdown, however, does not mean the US is withdrawing from NATO but instead is rightsizing its commitments and sending a message to NATO that this is the new reality of the level of support the current US Administration will provide to NATO even at the time of crisis.
Whilst this has made the headlines, it does not mean a zero-sum game. Prior to this drawdown, NATO member countries had already adjusted to the expectations and increased their budget allocations. European allies and Canada increased defense spending by 20% in 2025. Poland increased defense spending to 4.48% of its GDP, Germany has committed $117.2B for 2026 and $162B for 2029, and Norway for the first time has exceeded the US in per capita defense spending.
The NATO summit in Ankara on July 7-8 may formalize what has already occurred. European members will unlikely ask the US to reverse the drawdown. They will present what they have built instead.
In continuation to my book – Middle Powers in a Fragmented World – Great Powers reassess whether their support should remain permanent when they realize the strategic benefits accruing from such support are not incremental. It communicates to their allies that they need to step up their capabilities. It also has a deeper meaning that other alliances may want to notice: Great Power presence is not permanent. It creates a void, and the data supports the conclusion that NATO member countries have already stepped up.
Looking ahead...
The US is positioning itself to look internally and that process is already underway. The question is whether external crises will allow it to stay there.