An Irresistible Plan: How Europe Can Save NATO at the 2025 Summit

By Boncopia Team | May 27, 2025 | Global News

As the NATO summit in The Hague approaches in June 2025, European leaders face a pivotal moment. With President Donald Trump back in office and signaling a shift in U.S. priorities, the transatlantic alliance is at a crossroads. Trump’s skepticism toward NATO, coupled with his push for Europe to shoulder more of its defense burden, has sparked urgency among allies. But there’s an opportunity here—an irresistible plan that could strengthen NATO, preserve U.S. strategic support, and redefine the alliance for decades. Here’s how Europe can seize this moment and what it means for global security.

The Stakes: NATO’s Future Hangs in the Balance

NATO, the bedrock of Western security since 1949, faces an existential challenge. Trump’s first term saw him question the alliance’s value, criticize allies for not meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target, and even float the idea of a U.S. withdrawal. Now, with his administration prioritizing China and domestic concerns, European leaders are bracing for a potential U.S. military drawdown in Europe. Posts on X reflect this tension, with some calling for a bold European response to keep NATO intact.

The upcoming summit offers a chance to address these concerns head-on. By committing to a timeline for increased European responsibility while preserving U.S. strategic enablers—critical capabilities like air refueling, intelligence, and command systems—Europe can craft a deal that aligns with Trump’s transactional approach while securing the alliance’s future.

Why Now? The Shifting Transatlantic Landscape

The global security environment has changed dramatically. Russia’s war in Ukraine, North Korea’s involvement, and China’s growing influence have made NATO’s role more complex. The U.S., once the alliance’s unchallenged leader, now sees the Indo-Pacific as its primary focus. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s February 2025 statement that “stark strategic realities” prevent the U.S. from prioritizing Europe underscores this shift.

Meanwhile, Europe’s reliance on U.S. capabilities—particularly enablers like strategic airlift and surveillance—remains a weak point. NATO’s 2024 exercises, like STEADFAST DEFENDER, showed that U.S. forces still make up a significant portion of the alliance’s strength. European leaders know they must act to fill these gaps, especially as Trump demands NATO members spend up to 5% of GDP on defense, far above the current 2% target.

The Irresistible Plan: A New Transatlantic Bargain

To save NATO, European leaders can propose a bold, practical plan at the Hague summit. Here’s what it could look like:

1. Commit to a Higher Defense Spending Target
   NATO’s current 2% GDP spending goal is outdated, with only 23 of 32 members meeting it in 2024. European allies could propose raising this to 3% by 2030, targeting specific needs like enablers (air-to-air refueling, intelligence, and cyber capabilities). This move would show Trump that Europe is serious about burden-sharing, potentially keeping the U.S. engaged.

2. Timeline for U.S. Drawdown
   A structured timeline for reducing U.S. forces in Europe—while ensuring no security gaps—could appeal to Trump’s desire to reallocate resources to Asia. For example, the U.S. could shift air defense and naval assets to the Indo-Pacific, while Europe backfills these capabilities over five to ten years. This gradual approach avoids destabilizing the alliance.

3. EU as a Defense Funder
   The European Union could step up as a major financier of defense efforts, similar to its COVID-19 response. Joint EU borrowing to fund enablers like air tankers or missile defenses would reduce reliance on U.S. assets. Despite resistance from some member states, public support for Europeanized defense is strong.

4. Strengthen NATO’s Command Structure
   Europe could agree to take on more operational roles within NATO, but the U.S. must commit to maintaining its leadership in the alliance’s command structure, including the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) role. This ensures cohesion while allowing Europe to lead on the ground.

5. Address the Nuclear Question
   With Russia’s nuclear threats looming, Europe’s nuclear powers—France and the UK—may need to bolster their arsenals if the U.S. nuclear umbrella weakens. Backroom discussions at the summit could lay the groundwork for a stronger European nuclear posture, though this remains a sensitive topic.

This plan aligns with Trump’s call for Europe to “step up” while preserving U.S. strategic enablers, ensuring NATO remains a unified force.

Why It Could Work: Appealing to Trump’s Priorities

Trump’s transactional mindset makes this plan compelling. By offering concrete commitments—like a 3% spending target and EU-funded capabilities—Europe can frame the deal as a win for Trump, allowing him to claim credit for strengthening NATO while focusing U.S. resources on China. His administration’s “prioritizers,” like Elbridge Colby, advocate for shifting U.S. assets to Asia, making a structured drawdown appealing.

Moreover, this approach addresses Trump’s frustration with Europe’s perceived freeloading. As he stated at Mar-a-Lago, “Why are we in for billions more than Europe?” A clear European commitment to backfill U.S. capabilities could ease these tensions, keeping the U.S. invested in NATO’s Article 5 commitments.

Challenges: Can Europe Deliver?

The plan isn’t without hurdles. Europe’s economies are strained, with countries like Italy (1.57% GDP on defense) and France facing budget constraints. Political resistance to EU-led defense funding, particularly from Germany, could stall progress. Additionally, coordinating 32 NATO members to agree on a new spending target and timeline will require deft leadership from Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

Public support is a bright spot—European citizens increasingly favor a stronger, more independent defense posture. But leaders must move quickly to translate this into action, especially as Trump’s team signals impatience with “foot-dragging.” Failure to act could lead to a broader U.S. withdrawal, weakening NATO and emboldening adversaries like Russia.

The Global Impact: Beyond Europe

A successful plan could reshape global security. A stronger, more self-reliant Europe would free U.S. resources to counter China, aligning with America’s strategic pivot. It could also deter Russia, which continues to test NATO through hybrid warfare and nuclear posturing. Moreover, a robust NATO could enhance cooperation with Asian allies, as North Korea’s role in Ukraine underscores the interconnectedness of global threats.

Failure, however, risks a fractured alliance. If Trump perceives Europe as unwilling to act, he could scale back U.S. commitments, leaving Europe vulnerable and destabilizing the liberal international order.

The Hague Summit: A Defining Moment

The June 2025 NATO summit is Europe’s chance to present this irresistible plan. By committing to higher spending, a clear timeline for U.S. drawdown, and EU-funded capabilities, European leaders can strengthen NATO while addressing Trump’s demands. The summit must avoid getting bogged down in Ukraine-related disputes and focus on a unified vision for the alliance’s future.

NATO’s new Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, will play a crucial role. Known for his ability to navigate Trump’s unpredictability, Rutte must rally allies to embrace a “wartime mindset” and deliver concrete commitments.

Conclusion: A Stronger NATO or a Fractured Future?

The stakes at The Hague couldn’t be higher. Europe has a rare opportunity to redefine NATO, ensuring it remains a cornerstone of global security. By offering Trump a deal that aligns with his priorities—less U.S. burden, more European responsibility—allies can preserve the alliance’s strength and adaptability. But it requires bold leadership, political will, and a willingness to act decisively.

As the summit looms, the world watches. Will Europe rise to the challenge, or will NATO’s future hang in the balance?

Thought Questions:

1. Can European leaders overcome economic and political hurdles to meet a higher NATO spending target by 2030?

2. How should Europe balance its reliance on U.S. strategic enablers with the push for greater defense autonomy?

3. What role should the EU play in funding NATO’s capabilities, and how can it convince skeptical member states?

4. If Trump reduces U.S. commitments to NATO, how can Europe deter Russia without the U.S. nuclear umbrella?