NATO in turmoil as Trump pivots Russia-Ukraine policy

NATO is in turmoil

According to CNN, the February 12 meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, in theory, the agenda focused on coordinating military aid to Ukraine and welcoming new US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. However, in reality, it was a day that saw Trump 2.0 reverse the alliance's approach to the three-year-old Russia-Ukraine conflict, presenting a vision that appeared to meet some of Moscow's key demands and left NATO allies fighting to avoid rifts.

But there are clear signs that things will not go smoothly. US President Donald Trump fired the first shot of this crucial week of diplomacy by pouring cold water on Ukraine’s hopes for a peace deal that would benefit Kiev.

“Someday the Ukrainians may be Russian, or someday they may not be Russian,” Mr. Trump said on Fox News on February 10.

European leaders have since remained silent on Mr Trump's statements.

"There are a lot of different statements being made, it's important to see a very clear concrete plan," Latvian Defense Minister Andris Sprūds said on February 12. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte dodged the issue when asked by CNN at a pre-summit press conference, noting only: "We are working closely with President Trump's team at all levels, and these are very good conversations."

But coordination with allies may not be a top priority for the Trump administration. Overnight, NATO pivoted from its policy that Ukraine was on an “irreversible path” to membership, to Secretary Hegseth’s blunt statement: “The United States does not believe that Ukraine’s NATO membership is a realistic outcome of a negotiated solution.”

Some of his European counterparts have tried to argue that the two views are not in conflict.

“We are a NATO alliance, and Mr. Hegseth has also made the strongest possible commitment, always been clear that Ukraine's rightful place is in NATO,” said British Defense Secretary John Healey.

However, Mr. Healey dodged CNN's question about whether Mr. Hegseth's comments would be seen as surrendering to Moscow, instead saying: "It's a process that will take time."
Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur also pointed out in an interview with CNN that Hegseth's statement did not include a specific timeframe. "What Pete Hegseth said was the result of peace negotiations, not NATO membership," he argued. "He did not rule out the possibility that Ukraine could one day become a member of NATO."

European allies in disarray

Matthew Savill, Director of Military Science at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank, told CNN: "The US is quite comfortable acting at its own pace, and leaving Europe and Ukraine to deal with the consequences themselves."

“Europeans have to get up to speed with the current developments… If they think any American official or politician is going to do their best for Europe, on behalf of Europe, they are deluding themselves,” said Mr. Savill.

Amid all the Trump administration’s shaky rhetoric, there’s a hard truth Europe must face: the 2% defense spending target is increasingly outdated, even though a third of NATO members haven’t even reached that mark.

“Two percent is not enough. President Trump has called for five percent of GDP, and I agree. The United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship that encourages dependency,” said US Defense Secretary Hegseth.

And the urgency is not just coming from the US. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said: “If we stick to 2%, the alliance cannot defend itself for four to five years. It is important that we respond to Russia’s rearmament.”

On this point, it is hard to find a NATO minister who does not say they agree. But what is important is what they will actually do.

"We have heard Mr. Hegseth's call for European nations to act. We can and we will," British Defense Secretary Healey affirmed.

However, the British Government only committed to increasing spending from the current 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP without specifying a specific timeframe.

Caught between a US that promises to “trade off resources” in prioritizing the Pacific, and a Russia whose defense industry is outpacing the EU, this may be a reality that NATO’s European members can no longer sit idly by.