What would NATO be left with without the US military? As Trump warns ‘they need us more
Donald Trump‘s warning that NATO ‘need us much more than we need them’ has raised a difficult question for Europe: what would the world’s most powerful military alliance look like without the support of the United States?
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, the US president brushed aside warnings that his push to acquire Greenland could upset NATO, saying: ‘If it affects NATO, then it affects NATO.’
‘But, you know, they need us much more than we need them, I will tell you that right now.’
The US has long been NATO’s backbone. In 2025, the combined military spending of NATO states reached approximately 1.5 trillion dollars, with the US alone accounting for over 900 billion dollars of that total.
NATO members were previously expected to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense, a number Trump had long argued should be higher, leading to a new 5% target by 2035 being agreed upon at last year’s NATO Summit.
In 2024, The US spent around 3.38% of GDP on defense, trumped only by Estonia who spent 3.43% and Poland‘s 4.12%.
In military power, NATO as a whole dominates Russia. As of 2025, the alliance had around 3.5 million active military personnel compared with Russia’s 1.32 million.
NATO countries collectively have more than 22,000 aircrafts compared to Russia’s 4,292, as well as 1,143 military ships compared with their 400.
Meanwhile, the combined nuclear arsenal of the US, UK, and France is slightly lower, amounting to 5,692 nuclear warheads, compared with Russia’s 5,600.
NATO chief Mark Rutte said Monday the alliance was working on ways to bolster Arctic security
Trump’s remarks have revived fears that America’s commitment to NATO is no longer guaranteed
Trump’s comment on Sunday came as the US President doubled down on his claim that US control of Greenland is a national security necessity, arguing that the territory risks falling under Russian or Chinese influence due to its location and mineral resources.
‘Greenland should make the deal because Greenland does not want to see Russia or China take over,’ he said, adding that the island’s defenses amounted to ‘two dogsleds’ while ‘you have Russian destroyers all over the place.’
Asked whether such a move could compromise NATO, Trump replied: ‘Maybe NATO would be upset if I did it… we’d save a lot of money. I like NATO. I just wonder whether or not if needed NATO would they be there for us? I’m not sure they would.’
In reality, NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause, treating an attack on one member as an attack on all, has been invoked only once, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, when allies joined Washington in Afghanistan.
Yet Trump’s remarks have revived fears that America’s commitment to NATO is no longer guaranteed.
This comes as NATO chief Mark Rutte said Monday the alliance was working on ways to bolster Arctic security.
‘Currently we are working on the next steps to make sure that indeed we collectively protect what is at stake,’ Rutte told journalists on a visit to Croatia.
On the whole, Europe without the US would not be defenseless. According to CNN, the 31 NATO members aside from America still control over a million troops, hold advanced weaponry, and significant industrial and technological capacity.
Turkey alone has the alliance’s largest armed forces after the US, with more than 355,000 active personnel, followed by France, Germany, Poland, Italy and the UK.
Several European NATO countries have weapons that rival or exceed Russian equivalents.
While Russia operates a single aging aircraft carrier, the UK commands two modern carriers capable of launching F-35B stealth fighters.
France, Italy and Spain also operate aircraft carriers or amphibious ships capable of launching combat aircraft.
France and the UK maintain independent nuclear deterrents, and European NATO members collectively operate around 2,000 fighter and ground attack jets, including dozens of F-35s.
Yet military experts argue that what Europe lacks is not manpower or hardware alone, but the strategic enablers that allow modern wars to be fought and sustained.
While Russia operates a single aging aircraft carrier, the UK commands two modern carriers capable of launching F-35B stealth fighters
According to the Center for European Policy Analysis, Europe remains heavily dependent on the United States for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, integrated air and missile defense, strategic airlift, space assets, cyber capabilities and long range precision strike.
US Major General (rtd.) Gordon ‘Skip’ Davis said these capabilities are essential to command and control multi-domain operations at scale.
‘What the US brings is capabilities like strategic command and control systems and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets,’ Davis said, warning that without them European forces would struggle to sustain prolonged high intensity conflict.
Command structures pose another major challenge. NATO’s most senior operational commands, including Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Allied Air Command and Allied Land Command, are all led by US officers.
‘I don’t think that NATO could operate without US commanders and staff. That would be extremely difficult,’ Davis said.
The war in Ukraine has also exposed shortages in ammunition stockpiles and industrial capacity.
The EU failed to meet its target of supplying Ukraine with one million artillery shells by spring 2024, while the US doubled its monthly production of 155mm shells.
Russia, meanwhile, is reportedly producing around three million artillery munitions annually.
US aid has also been central to Ukraine’s cause, through American supplied HIMARS rocket systems, Patriot air defenses and earlier deliveries of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
The pause in US aid at the start of March 2025 raised doubts about whether European allies can compensate if American support is withdrawn completely.
As Davis warned, if Russia is given time to rebuild while Europe fails to rearm at the same pace, the balance could shift.