Trump’s Europe exit strategy could be Putin’s opening Foreign Affairs’ sobering take on NATO’s future

In the wake of the recent NATO summit in The Hague, where the alliance managed to maintain cohesion by keeping contentious issues off the table, Foreign Affairs delivers a blunt reality check: any temporary unity could soon unravel if the United States follows through on plans to reduce its military presence in Europe. While the summit ended with a historic pledge to boost defence spending to five per cent of GDP, the article argues that a larger, more dangerous shift is on the horizon—one that could seriously weaken NATO and embolden Russia.

At the heart of the concern is a forthcoming U.S. force posture review, which, according to the article, could trigger a rapid and significant drawdown of American troops and capabilities in Europe. Trump administration officials have signalled a shift in strategic focus toward the Indo-Pacific, framing Europe as increasingly capable of handling its own defence. Yet the article warns that such a realignment—particularly if done hastily—could leave NATO dangerously exposed just as Russia ramps up military spending and retools for long-term confrontation with the West.

The threat is not theoretical. Russia’s defence budget has jumped to 7.7 per cent of GDP in 2025, and its industrial base is fully mobilised. With a leaner but more capable military, and President Putin emboldened by perceptions of Western disunity, Moscow could be tempted to exploit even short-term vulnerabilities. Intelligence agencies across Europe agree that Russia could mount a credible attack on NATO territory within five years.

And NATO is not yet ready. Despite growing European defence budgets, the continent still depends heavily on U.S. enablers—air-to-air refuelling, strategic lift, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), missile defence systems, and cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. These cannot be replaced overnight. The U.S. also provides critical infrastructure, such as pre-positioned stocks, bases, and naval deployments that form the logistical backbone of NATO operations.

If these assets are withdrawn too quickly, the alliance’s deterrence posture could falter. The article outlines nightmare scenarios: undetected Russian sabotage of undersea cables, cyberattacks, or even limited territorial grabs in the Baltics or Arctic—all calibrated to test NATO’s resolve. With fewer U.S. capabilities, slower response times, and weakened collective confidence, Moscow might feel it can act with relative impunity.

Perhaps most troubling is the political signal such a withdrawal would send. The article contends that a sudden U.S. pivot could fracture European unity and revive old doubts about NATO’s reliability. For Putin, that disarray is not just a bonus—it’s the strategic goal.

The article’s core message is clear: timing matters. Europe’s military buildup will take years, not months. If the United States intends to reduce its presence, it must coordinate meticulously with allies, identifying capability gaps in advance and helping to fill them. Anything less risks giving Russia a dangerous opening—and NATO a crisis it may not be ready to face.

In sum, Foreign Affairs warns that NATO’s future hinges not just on promises or defence budgets, but on careful choreography. Without it, Trump’s pivot could become Putin’s prize.

By Vugar Khalilov