Can Europe afford to replace NATO?  Experts weigh in on EU’s security future

European countries need to be prepared for the possibility that they may have to create a defence alliance to replace NATO due to the stance of the new U.S. administration, said Friedrich Merz, a candidate for the position of Chancellor of Germany. He suggested that such changes could occur even before the NATO summit scheduled for June. "I’m curious to see whether we will still be talking about NATO in its current form, or whether we will have to create an independent European defence structure much sooner," Merz said in an interview with ARD.

The German politician admitted that he "never thought" he would have to say something like this. However, after the statements made by U.S. President Donald Trump and his close associates, "it became clear that the U.S. administration cares little about the fate of Europe." According to Merz, this is evidenced by the exclusion of the EU and Kyiv from peace negotiations concerning the war in Ukraine. "My impression over the last few days is that Russia and America are uniting here, over the heads of Ukraine, and thus over the heads of Europe," he remarked.

Merz added that after coming to power, his "absolute priority" would be the swift strengthening of Europe so that, step by step, it could "truly achieve independence from the U.S." "We must prepare for the possibility that Donald Trump will no longer unconditionally uphold NATO treaty commitments," Merz stated.

What could lie behind Merz's intentions? It seems he is echoing an initiative that has been voiced at different times by French President Macron, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. Could such an alternative to NATO bring any significant benefit to Europe?

Foreign experts shared their perspectives on this issue with Caliber.Az.

PhD and political scientist Greg Simons (Sweden) believes that Merz appears to be in a state of despair, much like most of the European political establishment.

“They have lost their identity and purpose, which were tied to geopolitical obedience to U.S.-imposed Euro-Atlanticism and absolute pursuit of ideological liberalism at the expense of democracy for European citizens. Therefore, this initiative may be a very weak attempt to negotiate and bargain with Trump’s policy toward Europe, which fluctuates between condemnation and neglect,” the expert noted.

In his view, Europe has undermined itself by submitting to Biden’s military imperatives in Ukraine, which have left the EU financially, militarily, and politically weakened.

"Europe is desperately searching for some kind of miracle to maintain a façade of relevance in international relations and the new great-power geopolitical realism. Politically and economically, it certainly cannot afford an alternative to NATO—it lacks the financial resources, and public opinion is not in its favour, as people are struggling with growing economic hardships. I see no benefit for Europe in this proposal, only greater difficulties for its citizens and humiliation for the political establishment, which risks further crisis and electoral challenges," Simons remarked.

Irish political scientist and historian Patrick Walsh believes that President Trump is attempting to dismantle the so-called "New World Order" proclaimed by the U.S. in the 1990s.

"Sometimes this is referred to as a unipolar world. Essentially, it involved the assertion of U.S. global hegemony following the collapse of the other superpower—the USSR. For about 30 years, this order was reinforced through a series of wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) and regime-change operations that led to various colour revolutions.

Another aspect was the eastward expansion of NATO and the EU, reaching as far as Georgia and Ukraine. This expansion largely took place during the Yeltsin era when Russia was on the brink of collapse. Ultimately, this led to the war in Ukraine, as Russia under Putin issued an ultimatum to the West demanding a halt and the signing of an agreement. When the Biden administration failed to respond, the war in Ukraine began three years ago. The U.S. and Europe backed Kyiv, imposing a sanctions regime against Russia.

As a result, Europe lost its primary source of cheap energy from Russia. This had a paralyzing effect on the European economy, particularly in Germany, the industrial engine of Europe. In essence, it undermined Europe's independence from the U.S.," the scholar explained.

However, Trump has not only decided to put an end to the "New World Order" project—starting with his stance on the war in Ukraine—but also to force Europe to pay for its own defence instead of relying on American taxpayers, Walsh continued.

"I believe European leaders now understand what is happening—they will be left to fend for themselves under the 'America First' policy in a multipolar world, where great powers, including the U.S., Russia, and China, engage in transactional relationships. Merz's proposal for an alternative to NATO is a reaction to this shift.

However, can Europe achieve independence from the U.S. without entering into new relations with Russia—a country it has declared a threat? It lacks both the political and economic power to chart its own course separately from the U.S., nor is it willing or likely to be allowed to establish new ties with Russia. There is a potential option with China, but Washington would strongly oppose this, making it an unlikely scenario.

The truth is, Europe finds itself in a difficult position due to the end of the 'New World Order,' under which it could shelter behind U.S. power and use the resulting stability to improve the well-being of its citizens. Now, it has returned to a vast multipolar world, where it can be described as a vassal of the U.S.—but without the previous benefits. For Merz and Germany, there is little hope of escaping this predicament," Walsh concluded.