As Trump forces NATO to pay up, alliance races to close military gap with US

Lead

As President Donald Trump intensifies pressure on NATO allies to increase defense spending and orders the withdrawal of 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany, a deeper issue is coming into focus: even as allied budgets rise, NATO still depends heavily on American military power to function. This dependence—spanning nuclear deterrence, missile defense, intelligence, and logistics—has fueled calls for structural changes within the alliance, according to reporting by Fox News and TASS.

Coverage Comparison

Fox News, in a multi-part series examining NATO's challenges, highlights the growing gap between political commitments and real military capability. TASS, the Russian state news agency, also covered the remarks of retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, a former U.S. national security advisor, who has been vocal about the alliance's shortcomings. Both sources agree on NATO's expansion from 12 to 32 countries and the corresponding dilution of military effectiveness, but Fox News places greater emphasis on the U.S. troop withdrawals and the specifics of European underinvestment.

Key Claims

• NATO expansion and capability gap: According to Fox News and TASS, NATO has expanded from 12 to 32 member countries, which Kellogg argues has "diluted the impact" of the alliance. "You started with 12, and you went to 32, and in the process, I think you diluted the impact," he told Fox News Digital, calling today's NATO "a very bloated architecture." This expansion, he contends, has created a gap between political commitments and real military capability.

• U.S. share of defense spending: Reports indicate that the United States accounted for roughly 65% to 70% of NATO defense spending by around 2010. While this figure is historical, it underscores the long-standing imbalance that Trump has sought to address. Fox News reports that the U.S. provides a disproportionate share of high-end capabilities, including air and missile defense systems, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well as logistics and command systems.

• Nuclear deterrence reliance: NATO's nuclear deterrence relies heavily on the assumption of U.S. retaliation, with the U.S. providing the overwhelming majority of NATO's nuclear arsenal. This point, noted in both Fox News and TASS coverage, is central to the alliance's dependence on American power.

• European underinvestment: European countries have underinvested in defense, leading to atrophied forces. Kellogg cited the British military as an example: "When you look at the Brits right now, they could barely deploy forces: they have two aircraft carriers, both under maintenance. Their brigades are like one out of six that work." He accused European countries of "relying solely on the US."

• Kellogg's advice to Trump: Kellogg advised Trump during his first term to consider a "tiered relationship" with NATO. "I told the president… maybe you ought to talk about a tiered relationship with NATO," he said, adding that the U.S. "needs to develop a new NATO, for lack of a better term, a new defensive alignment with Europe."

• Allied investment in new capabilities: A claim carried by a single source suggests that NATO allies are increasing investments in warships, aircraft, drones, long-range missiles, space, and cyber capabilities, while boosting readiness and modernizing command and control. This has not been independently verified, but it aligns with statements from NATO officials about increased defense spending.

Perspectives

American Perspective: From the U.S. viewpoint, as presented by Fox News, NATO's imbalance is a pressing issue. Trump's pressure is framed as a necessary corrective to European free-riding. Kellogg's advocacy for a "tiered" alliance reflects a desire to restructure NATO to reflect actual capabilities, potentially reducing U.S. commitments to less capable allies.

European Perspective: While not directly quoted in the provided extracts, European allies have often emphasized their increasing defense budgets and contributions to NATO missions. The claim of increased investments in new capabilities suggests a counter-narrative that Europe is modernizing, albeit slowly. The withdrawal of U.S. troops has been met with concern in Germany and other host nations.

Russian Perspective: TASS, representing the Kremlin's view, presents Kellogg's remarks as evidence of NATO's internal discord. The coverage highlights "bloated architecture" and European underinvestment, aligning with Russia's long-standing narrative of NATO's decline and the transatlantic rift. TASS also mentions Trump's criticism of NATO partners for refusing to support a US-Israeli operation against Iran, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that Washington will reassess NATO's value after that operation—an angle not emphasized in Fox News' reports.

Conclusion

The debate over NATO's future is intensifying as the alliance faces mounting threats from Russia and instability in the Middle East. While President Trump's demands for increased spending have yielded some results, the fundamental imbalance in military capabilities remains. Calls for a "tiered" alliance, as voiced by Kellogg, could reshape the transatlantic partnership. As NATO allies invest in new capabilities, the gap between political commitment and operational readiness may narrow, but the path forward is fraught with diplomatic and military complexities.