NATO’s waning unity amid rising defense budgets and escalating global tensions

Department of Research, Studies and International News 24-06-2025

As NATO leaders gather this week in The Hague, the alliance finds itself increasingly fractured and on the defensive, both militarily and politically. While Western media presents the summit as a routine display of transatlantic unity, a closer look reveals growing divisions within the bloc, mounting anxiety about future U.S. commitment, and continued attempts to legitimize NATO’s expansionist agenda, particularly at the expense of Russian and Chinese interests.

This year’s summit, chaired for the first time by Secretary General Mark Rutte, comes at a critical time. U.S. President Donald Trump, now in his second term, is attending with a familiar agenda: pushing NATO allies to increase military spending while expressing skepticism about America’s role in footing the bill. His administration’s demand for each member to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense, up from the already contentious 2 percent threshold, is being met with resistance, particularly from countries like Spain and Belgium.

Yet the real focus of the summit, though shrouded in diplomatic language, is twofold: solidifying Western support for Ukraine against Russia, and navigating the rapidly evolving conflict between Iran and the Zionist entity, both of which deeply concern NATO’s leadership.

Despite the alliance’s claim that it seeks peace in Europe, NATO has functioned as a tool of U.S. military hegemony since its inception. Its eastward expansion, particularly the aim to incorporate Ukraine, has been a red line for Russia for decades. The West’s refusal to acknowledge Moscow’s legitimate security concerns has directly contributed to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, a war that NATO powers have fueled through massive arms shipments and political backing rather than de-escalation efforts.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, while in attendance, is unlikely to receive the concrete path to NATO membership he seeks. While symbolic promises and funding commitments continue, such as the €50 billion in annual support pledged last year, Ukraine remains a pawn in a broader geopolitical game. The alliance’s Article 5 protection, which would guarantee NATO intervention in the event of an attack, remains withheld, revealing the West’s hesitance to fully back its rhetoric with action.

Russia’s position is unambiguous: NATO’s encroachment toward its borders is unacceptable. In this context, Moscow’s actions must be viewed as defensive in nature, aimed at preserving regional balance and resisting the imposition of Western-dominated security structures.

Another pressing concern at the summit is the rapidly escalating conflict in West Asia. Following the U.S.’s provocative strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran’s retaliatory attack on a U.S. airbase in Qatar, NATO finds itself pulled into yet another conflict outside its traditional theater. While Washington claims that a ceasefire has been reached between Iran and the Israeli regime, neither party has confirmed any agreement, underscoring the fragility of the situation.

European leaders, including those from Germany, France, and the UK, have held urgent talks with Iranian officials in a bid to prevent a wider regional war. However, it is telling that NATO’s approach remains reactive, shaped largely by U.S. and Israeli interests, with little regard for the sovereign rights of nations like Iran, which has consistently acted in self-defense against foreign aggression.

Meanwhile, NATO’s internal coherence is unraveling. Countries like Hungary express clear reluctance to antagonize Moscow, while others, such as Poland, are dealing with rising domestic discontent over the influx of Ukrainian refugees and economic strain caused by prolonged militarization.

The alliance’s overreliance on the U.S. is also increasingly apparent. European states are beginning to contemplate a post-American NATO, with discussions underway to reorganize financial contributions and operational leadership. However, analysts estimate that it would take a decade of intensified European investment to compensate for the loss of U.S. military might, if Washington were to withdraw.

Trump’s critical stance toward the alliance continues to sow doubt. His scolding of Zelenskyy during a White House visit and ambiguous posture toward Ukraine reflect a shift in U.S. priorities. The rhetoric of “ending the war quickly” sounds more like a campaign slogan than a diplomatic strategy.

As NATO pushes for greater militarization and higher spending, it risks alienating its own members and accelerating global polarization. Rather than fostering peace and stability, its posture signals preparation for prolonged confrontation with sovereign states like Russia, Iran, and eventually, China, nations that have consistently advocated for a multipolar world order based on mutual respect, sovereignty, and non-interference.

This summit may go down in history not as a moment of Western resolve, but as a turning point that highlighted NATO’s dwindling unity, its misplaced priorities, and its outdated Cold War mindset in a world increasingly demanding balance and fairness.