Europe has not turned away from NATO; rather, it is using NATO as a foundation on which to weave an increasingly dense network of “minilateral” security arrangements. This network is both a product of the war in Ukraine and the reallocation of transatlantic responsibilities, and a continuation of Europe's longstanding tradition of security cooperation.

The agreement highlights a broader challenge for bilateral relations: how to address security concerns while preserving space for economic engagement. Its credibility will depend on clear limits to investment restrictions, workable alternatives for development and meaningful Greenlandic participation.

The recent G7 and NATO summits suggest that Europe is seeking not only to retain the initiative in shaping regional security but also to play a more active role in building an improved international order. In doing so, it has absorbed elements of Donald Trump’s transactional diplomacy.

The summit illustrated that NATO is evolving from a traditional alliance founded on shared values and underwritten by American security guarantees into an alliance increasingly defined by capabilities, responsibilities and transactions.

Repeated U.S. military interventions and alignment with Israeli strategic priorities have eroded American credibility in the Middle East and weakened global confidence in U.S. leadership. The United States can restore its strategic influence only through diplomatic consistency, restraint, and a more independent regional policy.

The question “Where is NATO heading?” has long been debated in academic circles. Under pressure from Donald Trump, the answer is gradually emerging: NATO’s trajectory mirrors that of many international institutions today, which are not collapsing abruptly but transforming themselves.

Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to 34 percent among the American people, the lowest level of his second term. Given the U.S. war against Iran, the growing internal divisions within his administration and the rising inflationary pressure at home, Trump now has juggle a lot at once.

Recent satellite imagery tells a sobering story. Iranian strikes during the 2026 conflict damaged or destroyed at least 228 structures and pieces of equipment across US military sites in the Middle East. Hangars, barracks, fuel depots, aircraft, radars, communications nodes, and air defense systems were hit at around 16 installations spanning eight countries. This represents the majority of America’s regional footprint in West Asia. Analyses by The Washington Post and CNN, drawing on verified commercial and Iranian-released imagery, reveal far more extensive impact than initial Pentagon assessments acknowledged.

By Nicu Popescu and Fredrik Wesslau PARIS—For decades, much of Europe viewed military engagement through the lens of NATO or the European Union, since t

The organization, which is historically tied to the United States is facing new questions. Donald Trump’s rhetoric has offended America’s European allies, and several of them do not want to get involved in an unpopular war. Unless resolved, such frictions will reduce NATO from a unity platform to a contest of priorities.