Overview of Does Nato have a future without US leadership?
This episode of the FT’s Rachman Review examines whether NATO can remain effective if the United States scales back its leadership role. Gideon Rachman speaks with Julianne Smith, the former US ambassador to NATO, about the Trump-era strains on the alliance, European burden-sharing, the risks of US troop reductions, and how the war in Ukraine has reshaped NATO’s purpose and politics.
Key Themes and Discussion Points
Trump, NATO, and Alliance Tensions
- Trump arrived at the recent NATO summit frustrated, especially over what he sees as Europe’s failure to do enough to support the US.
- Despite tensions, Smith says the summit ended with Trump feeling allies had “heard him loud and clear,” especially on defense spending.
- The discussion highlights how Trump’s mood and grievances can influence NATO dynamics, including decisions about US force posture in Europe.
US Troop Reductions in Europe
- A major topic is the expected reduction of US forces in Europe.
- Smith argues that Europeans want any drawdown to be guided by best military advice, not personal or political frustrations.
- She suggests reductions may be a mix of strategic planning and political signaling, with some countries—possibly Spain—more vulnerable to cuts because of Trump’s irritation.
The Risk of a “Window of Opportunity” for Putin
- Smith warns that a poorly timed or politicized US drawdown could create a temporary gap in European security while Europeans rearm.
- That gap could tempt Vladimir Putin to test NATO through:
- hybrid attacks
- cyberattacks
- airspace violations
- Article 5 probing incidents
- She does not predict a full Russian invasion of NATO territory, but she sees real risk in opportunistic pressure and escalation.
Ukraine’s War and NATO’s Response
- Smith says Trump’s attitude toward Ukraine appears to have become more favorable, partly because he now sees Ukraine as a “winner.”
- She discusses the summit announcement that Ukraine may get a license to produce Patriot PAC-3 missiles, calling it strategically important but hard to execute.
- Reasons for caution:
- security risks of production in/near Ukraine
- bureaucratic hurdles
- uncertainty about whether the plan can be delivered quickly
Ukraine as Both a Moral and Strategic Cause
- NATO support for Ukraine is framed not just as sympathy, but as self-interest:
- Ukraine is holding back Russia
- Russian success in Ukraine could eventually threaten NATO territory
- Smith also emphasizes the remarkable resilience of Ukraine, which Western intelligence initially thought would struggle to survive the invasion.
Intelligence Before the War
- Smith recalls how hard it was to persuade allies, including some in Eastern Europe, that Russia’s full-scale invasion was imminent.
- She credits Avril Haines and the US intelligence community for sharing unprecedented intelligence with NATO and Ukraine.
- One key example was warning about the Russian assault on Hostomel Airport, which proved critical.
- After the war began, some allies admitted they had not believed the warnings.
NATO’s Internal Tensions with Ukraine
- The episode also revisits how tense NATO-Ukraine relations have been:
- Ukraine was frustrated that NATO did not intervene more forcefully in 2022
- NATO was unwilling to seriously consider membership during the early phase of the war
- Zelensky often pushed allies hard in meetings, balancing gratitude with demands for more support
- Smith says managing those dynamics was difficult but unsurprising given the stakes.
Can NATO Function Without Strong US Leadership?
Smith’s Core View
- Smith says this is the central question facing the alliance.
- She argues NATO has historically depended on the US acting as:
- team captain
- neutral arbiter
- agenda-setter
- broker of European disputes
Why US Leadership Matters
- She points to longstanding European fractures, including:
- France vs. Germany
- Greece vs. Turkey
- broader disagreements over strategy and burden-sharing
- In her view, Europe can do more, but it is harder for Europeans to coordinate without Washington’s leadership.
A Personal Anecdote
- Smith recalls that when she first arrived at NATO, allies told her she should speak first in meetings because the US ambassador is expected to lead the conversation.
- She sees this as a symbol of how deeply NATO is structured around American leadership.
Broader Strategic Takeaways
NATO Is Adapting, but Politics May Be the Limiting Factor
- Smith believes NATO has repeatedly adapted over time:
- from the Soviet threat
- to the Balkans
- to counterterrorism and piracy
- to cyber and drone threats
- now to war in Europe again
- But she is less certain that politics, especially in the US, will allow the alliance to keep functioning as it has.
Is NATO Still Relevant?
- The episode closes on a larger historical question:
- Was the post–World War II era of transatlantic solidarity an exception?
- Or is NATO’s current model still sustainable?
- Smith does not think NATO has run its course, but she acknowledges that its relevance may be under pressure as US politics shift.
The US Debate on Global Commitments
- Smith says some Americans still deeply believe in international alliances and the idea that the US is “stronger together” with partners.
- But she also admits that her side of the argument can feel like it is losing, especially to a new generation less connected to the history of World War II and the Cold War.
Bottom Line
The episode argues that NATO still works best when the US leads, even as Europe takes on more responsibility. Julianne Smith sees the alliance as adaptable and still strategically necessary, but warns that political drift in Washington could weaken deterrence, embolden Russia, and expose fault lines inside the alliance. The biggest unresolved issue is not whether Europe should do more—it’s whether NATO can hold together without the US serving as its anchor.