Most see NATO through the lens of history. It ensured that the Cold War stayed cold while successfully protecting its member states.
Most remember an Alliance of liberal democracies that maintained a balanced and credible military force at high readiness, constantly prepared to respond to any threats.
During the Cold War, the Alliance acted according to the axiom that “If you want peace, prepare for war” (Si vis pacem, para bellum).
The Allies knew the enemy, its strategic aims and objectives, its plans, its theatre of operations and its military capabilities. They were fully committed to a credible, collective defence.
During the Cold War, the Alliance consisted of 16 countries united by a common purpose. As a result, 15 of 16 were militarily strong and fully capable of supporting their allies—the lone exception being Iceland, which, despite lacking a standing army, played a vital strategic role through its geographic position and NATO infrastructure.
One strong military left
Present-day NATO consists of 32 member states. Yet only one—the United States—can still be considered militarily strong.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, European investment in defense collapsed. In 2006, NATO introduced the 2% of GDP spending guideline as a political signal of commitment to common defense. However, apart from the UK and Greece, most European countries consistently failed to meet this benchmark.
By 2024—ten years after the war in Ukraine began with Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014—nine countries still fell short of the target. Eight others met it for the first time that same year.
The 2% target has always illustrated NATO’s lack of strategic foresight.
In the 1980s, NATO maintained a credible and balanced force structure, with European countries spending an average of 3.8% of GDP on defense. Today, many still spend below 2%, while NATO’s command and force structures have atrophied. Rebuilding credible deterrence will now cost far more than maintaining it ever would have.
Instead of restoring military power in 2014, the Alliance chose to aim for a target too low to reverse its decline. As a result, critical vulnerabilities, capability gaps and shortcomings were ignored.
Russia rises, Europe hesitates
Worse still, Russia is outspending Europe militarily—and gaining a strategic advantage not just through weapons, but through will. The Kremlin’s readiness to take risks, its disregard for international law, lack of democratic oversight, and use of disinformation and manipulation all act as force multipliers.
Russia has shown it is willing and able to commit atrocities that liberal democracies find morally unacceptable and legally indefensible.
Even worse, NATO itself is struggling with internal cohesion. The Alliance now includes full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and even governments with pro-Russian leanings. NATO’s consensus-based decision-making process means that any member state can block action—making it difficult to respond swiftly to evolving threats.
Countries like Hungary and Slovakia have blocked, delayed or diluted key decisions on deterrence and support to Ukraine, effectively hindering NATO’s strategic posture.
There is growing discord over NATO’s core strategic concept and ambitions, defence budget targets, strategy and defence aid for Ukraine. It is even unable to define the ongoing Russian hybrid war in Europe as just that: a hybrid war.
America walks away
Even worse still, the USA can no longer be considered a trusted ally. Project 2025, a policy blueprint developed by conservative think tanks and embraced by the Trump administration, outlines a radical transformation of US foreign policy.
Project 2025 argues that “US allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea.” It stresses that NATO must be transformed so that its “allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for […] nuclear deterrent,” and other selected capabilities, while “reducing the US force posture in Europe.”
Its pivot from Europe is not a hypothetical future scenario. It is already happening.
Though framed as a shift toward future threats like China, it is also rooted in diverging values and principles.
The Trump administration is turning away from NATO’s founding ideals: liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Recent statements by the US administration signal a deepening of the transatlantic chasm, suggesting not only a different perception of Russia but also a fundamental split in democratic values. In just 100 days, the Trump administration has:
Withdrawn from several international organizations and a legally binding climate treaty
Dismantled USAID, eroding the US soft power and global influence
Undermined the rule of law by sanctioning the International Criminal Court
- Sided with authoritarian regimes at the UN, including Russia, Belarus, and North Korea
Initiated trade conflicts with traditional allies
Suggested land grabs in three different regions and endorsed ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
The US is setting international law aside in favour of “might makes right.”
Domestically, the administration is dismantling democratic institutions—targeting political opponents, the judiciary, journalists, civil servants, students, and immigrants.
This marks the start of a fundamental geopolitical shift: the emergence of an unthinkable alignment between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Trump has chosen to restore ties with “a sanctioned leader under an international arrest warrant for crimes against humanity and genocide.”
As his foreign and security policy aligns with that of Putin, Trump has encouraged Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines. He is pursuing a “peace plan” that mirrors the Kremlin’s blueprint to defeat Ukraine—rewarding the aggressor while pressuring the victim. US aid for Ukraine is coming to an end, at the peril of Europe.
NATO is the problem
The US-led global order is gone. European security is in crisis—undermined by Russia’s aggression, the US pivot, and NATO’s abandonment of shared values. Most of all, Europe is vulnerable because it has failed to invest in its own defense. It lacks strategic autonomy and a credible security architecture.
NATO no longer deters threats—and is increasingly deterred from acting.
With reform blocked and capability gaps unresolved, the Alliance has become a liability. It now offers member states a convenient excuse to underinvest in their own defense, assuming NATO will always step in when needed. This complacency has hollowed out the Alliance from within, creating a dangerous cycle where the institution meant to provide security instead perpetuates the very weakness it was created to prevent.
So long as NATO is treated as the solution, any serious debate about how Europe can build its own strategic autonomy will remain stalled.
Build something new
Europe has the potential to become a global military power—but it must believe in its capabilities and act together. It needs a new defense structure based on shared values, common interests, and a commitment to its own security.
It is a paradox “that 500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians.”
Europe must create a Coalition of Like-Minded (CALM) countries: a new alliance built on unity, democratic values, and the will to act. Strength lies in cohesion, not numbers—and unity may require excluding those who undermine it.
Which countries lack shared democratic values? Which fail to invest in defense? Which seek to appease Russia or oppose support to Ukraine? Which lack the political will to meet today’s security challenges? These are the hard questions CALM must answer to ensure coherence and purpose.
In my opinion, neither NATO nor the EU can provide the framework. Both suffer from institutional paralysis and veto power that blocks strategic autonomy. CALM must learn from their flaws while building on their strengths.
This new alliance should exist outside these frameworks, yet remain fully interoperable with NATO. To achieve genuine strategic autonomy—Europe’s ability to act independently and as an equal partner to the US—CALM must establish its own military headquarters and command structure.
Its framework should mirror NATO’s foundational documents but be adapted to today’s realities. Like NATO, CALM must be defensive by nature, focusing on collective defense, crisis prevention, and cooperative security—but tailored to a world in which the US is no longer a reliable partner.
Who deserves a seat?
Membership must be earned. Liberal democracies willing to urgently increase defense spending, put their industries on war footing, and acknowledge the possibility of direct conflict with Russia within 2–5 years should lead. “There is a war going on in Ukraine for the future of the whole of Europe.”
Candidates must:
- Uphold democracy, human rights, and the rule of law
- Invest at least 4% of GDP in defense (excluding pensions)
- Implement the White Paper for European Defence: Readiness 2030, including urgently closing capability gaps, improving military mobility, stockpiling, and fostering operational cooperation
- Follow NATO standards to ensure interoperability
- Achieve collaborative procurement meeting the EU’s 40% target
- Diversify defense supply chains to prevent strategic dependency
- Establish nuclear deterrence.
Decision-making must be based on a 3/4 majority—enabling swift action, accountability, and the expulsion of members who fail to meet their commitments.
If I were asked for advice, I would argue that initial members might include Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. These countries have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to NATO, staunch support for Ukraine, and recognition of the existential Russian threat. Over half share a border with Russia, providing intimate understanding of its foreign policy, strategic aims, and historical methods.
The existing Nordic-Baltic Cooperation (NB8)—which frequently partners with the UK, Poland, Czechia, and Ukraine—offers a proven foundation. Together, they represent the political and strategic weight necessary to command attention from both Russia and the US.
Countries should be assessed on both current capacity and past performance: political will, support for Ukraine, commitment to defense targets, and relations with Russia. Equally crucial: acknowledging that the US is no longer a trusted ally.
Most current NATO and EU member states would not qualify for CALM’s founding group due to persistent shortcomings: flawed democratic systems, Russian affiliations, failure to meet NATO’s 2% target, and lack of consistent support for Ukraine. These failures have directly undermined both NATO’s credibility and European security.
CALM’s initial members are not an exclusive club but a standard-setting core. Other countries may join—but only if they demonstrate firm commitment to the alliance’s core principles and the willingness to invest accordingly.
Democracy, shared values, and security investment cannot be optional. They must be foundational, non-negotiable criteria for both entry and continued membership.
Follow Ukraine’s lead
Europe cannot preserve democracy or its way of life with soft power alone.
Europe has the economy, technology, and population to become a global military power. Collectively, it possesses everything needed to become a credible force. What it lacks is unity, resolve, and willingness to act. To succeed, Europe must forge military power built on shared determination.
The proposed CALM countries already meet the essential criteria: democratic governance, unwavering support for Ukraine, commitment to European security, and respect for international law. But Europe must act outside NATO and EU frameworks—institutions paralyzed by veto powers and underinvestment.
Security cannot be based on hope. Europe’s ability to defend itself is its only guarantee of sovereignty and stability.
Rebuilding deterrence will come at great cost to all sectors of society. But Europe faces a stark choice: determine its own future or submission by foreign powers wishing to determine our future.
Ukraine’s inclusion—while several NATO and EU members are excluded—demonstrates that military power matters more than institutional affiliation or formal membership criteria. Ukraine alone guarantees European security and stability. The nation is protecting our way of life and shared values at an extreme cost. It represents the strongest and most battle-hardened military power on the continent. While not a perfect democracy, it demonstrates democratic awareness that eclipses many established member states. It has made the transition needed to establish credible deterrence.
It is up to the rest of us to rise and follow Ukraine’s lead.
Make no mistake: Ukraine needs CALM as much as CALM needs Ukraine. They need each other to grow, evolve and succeed.
Editor’s note. The opinions expressed in our Opinion section belong to their authors. Euromaidan Press’ editorial team may or may not share them.
Submit an opinion to Euromaidan Press
