Transcription
This video is sponsored by Plaude. This right here is NATO. 32 countries, the largest military alliance the world has ever seen. Built on one simple promise: An attack on one is treated as an attack on all. For Europe, this has been the ultimate security guarantee since the Second World War.
But recently, NATO has come under pressure. "We don't need them." And that raises a very serious question. Is NATO still in Europe's best interest? Or is it time to start thinking about something new?
Okay, those are some very big questions and not ones we should be asking lightly. But the times really are changing, and NATO really has developed into an increasingly unstable relationship between the United States and the rest of the members. You see, NATO is made up of 32 countries, all very different in size and military power. In 2024 alone, the United States accounted for more than half of NATO's total defense spending. And honestly, when you look at these numbers, it's kind of easy to understand why many Americans have called for Europe to do more. Because the argument is super simple and kind of convincing: Why should Americans pay for European security while Europeans spend their money on very large welfare systems?
But to be very honest with you here, that picture is so, so far from complete. In fact, you could argue almost the exact opposite. America's enormous military spending, by design. Europe's dependence on the United States, again, by design. And Europe's freeloading on American security. That actually may not be all Europe's fault, but part of how the system was built and, crucially, how the US actually wants it. But to really understand all of this, we need to look at what the alliance actually is, and most importantly, what it has become today in 2026.
When NATO was formed in 1949, Western Europe was a graveyard of empires. Europe didn't really need just an ally; it needed leadership and massive investment. The United States stepped in with the most powerful security guarantee ever invented: NATO. But that protection came with a permanent structural price tag. Because NATO is often presented as an alliance of equals. You know, 32 nations standing shoulder to shoulder. At the top is the North Atlantic Council, where every member from Iceland to the United States has an equal seat at the table. And to maintain this image of European leadership, the face of NATO, the secretary general, is almost always a European. Currently, Margaret [last name missing] has to sometimes use strong language to get strong language from everyone. But don't let the title fool you here. The secretary general is a diplomat and a coordinator, not a military commander.
Because if we look at the NATO hierarchy, the most powerful military position in the alliance is the Supreme Allied Commander, always an American general. This commander oversees the planning of all NATO operations. And by hard-coding an American into that top military slot, the US ensured that no major European military operation could happen without the White House signing off on it. The US not only leads NATO but also maintains a major on-the-ground presence with over 70,000 troops permanently stationed across Europe. And then there's the ultimate leverage: the nuclear umbrella. Around 100 US tactical nuclear bombs are stored in Europe. A very powerful show of force and a core element of deterrence.
But guys, think about what this actually means. Europe gave up its military autonomy for American protection. And for 70 years, that was a bargain. Europe gained something that rarely existed on the continent before: lasting peace. But let's not forget the return here. The United States also gained something extremely valuable: a massive, permanent platform to project its power across the globe, used to beat the Soviets and beyond. And the US has used it. For example, many US drone operations in the Middle East today are coordinated through Ramstein Air Base here in Germany.
But before we look into all of the other ways Europe paid for American protection, a very quick word from today's sponsor. Because to make a video like this, I usually have multiple calls, background chats, and pages of research and notes. Because when you're covering EU trade policy or geopolitics, missing one nuance can distort the entire explanation. And it often takes me hours re-watching recordings or digging through notes to double-check one small detail. And that's why I really, really like Plaude. It records conversations, turns them into clean transcripts with speaker labels so I know who said what, and then organizes everything into summaries and action points. On my computer, it even reminds me to start recording when a meeting begins. One click and it's done.
You might ask, why not just use a phone? For me, Plaude works differently. It's a dedicated device that records 20 to 30 hours straight with built-in noise reduction, and it doesn't get interrupted by calls or notifications. But what really makes the difference is what happens after. With Ask Plaude, I can simply ask, "What were the key arguments from my discussion on the EU India trade deal last week?" and it finds the exact part in seconds. It also has analysis tools that help pick up on power dynamics and what people actually want. And at that point, it's basically an awesome recall assistant that saves hours of work. Plaude also meets high international data production standards, and I can use it professionally with confidence. So whether you're a journalist, researcher, analyst, or anyone working with complex information, this isn't just about recording; it's about thinking more clearly. You can try Plaude with three months of Pro for free using my link below. If one missed detail costs time, accuracy, or credibility, this is genuinely worth looking at.
And now back to the video. So for 40 years, this NATO system held together, and it was a key factor behind the collapse of the Soviet Union. But once the Cold War ended, something began to shift. In 1998, France and the United Kingdom agreed on a bold idea: Europe should be able to act militarily on its own. And soon after, the EU announced an ambitious plan: a 60,000-strong rapid deployment force, ready within 60 days and able to sustain operations for up to a year. Washington, though, was not enthusiastic. US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded with what became known as the 3Ds: no duplication of NATO, no discrimination against non-EU NATO members, and most importantly, no decoupling from the United States. The message was very clear: a strong, independent European military, one that could act without the US, was not desirable because ultimately it would weaken American strategic influence in Europe.
And to be honest, ever since then, European militaries have become far less capable of acting on their own. Take military specialization. This became the official NATO policy in 2012 at the Chicago summit under the banner of "smart defense." Instead of every country maintaining a full, self-sufficient military, each would focus on a few niche roles and rely on allies for the rest. But in practice, that often meant relying on one country in particular: the United States. For example, we now rely on the US for air refueling, intelligence, and strategic airlift. And of course, the dependence doesn't even stop there. Because specialization and interoperability within NATO have pushed European countries to buy more and more and even more American equipment. Have a look at these numbers. This chart shows where European NATO countries have sourced their imported weapons from over the past four years. On average, European NATO countries source 64% of their military gear from the US. And that's basically billions of euros flowing straight into American defense giants.
And for Europe, this dependence comes with yet another consequence. Yeah, the list literally is getting longer and longer. Many militaries are now so deeply locked into American systems. And the best example here is the F-35. On paper, it's the most advanced fighter jet ever built, which is why so many European countries, from the Netherlands to Poland and Germany, decided to buy it. But the F-35 isn't just a plane; it's basically a flying computer tied into a US-managed ecosystem. It depends on continuous software updates, diagnostics, and logistics networks controlled by the United States to remain fully operational. And if that access were ever restricted, whether due to political tensions or decisions in Washington, your sovereign air force suddenly has a very, very big problem.
So here is an overview from a very high-level perspective. That's the deal at the heart of NATO. Now, I really want to emphasize this, and especially for you American viewers: The US gets a lot out of this relationship. It gains global power projection, political legitimacy, and billions flowing into its defense industry. And US Europeans have accepted that trade-off because we got something invaluable in return: security. But now things really are rapidly changing. The US is really not keeping their side of the bargain.
"Well, I've said that to them. I said, 'If you're not going to pay, we're not going to defend.' I said that seven years ago. And because of that, they paid hundreds of billions of dollars. I said, 'If you're not going to pay your bills, we're not going to defend you.'" Four years, the magic number was 2% of GDP. But the goalposts just don't stop moving because now that demand is 5%. And America's security guarantee is becoming conditional on things that don't even have anything to do with European defense, like trade deals or even the bizarre 2026 diplomatic crisis over Greenland. And only this week, it's the same playbook once again. Trump warned NATO it was making a foolish mistake over Iran, threatening a very bad future for the alliance. In other words, back US wars, even the ones that Trump has started, without informing his allies, or risk America walking away from NATO. To Trump, NATO is not some sacred alliance; it's leverage. European dependence is just a bargaining chip.
And this leaves the continent facing a terrifying dilemma. First, we can keep paying the ransom and follow the US into every global firestorm. Second, we stop paying the ransom and pretty much pray that the US does not pull the plug. Or third, leave NATO and build a true European alternative. Yeah, I mean, a few years ago, suggesting Europe to leave NATO was a fringe conspiracy theory. And today, it's kind of becoming more and more mainstream with the conversations that I'm having.
But we do need to be careful here. And before we get carried away with the dreams of a European army, we need a reality check. If anyone thinks here again that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming. You can't. We can't. We need each other. But for Europe, if you really want to go it alone, and those of you who are pleading for that, forget that. You can never get there with 5%. It will be 10%. You have to build up your own nuclear capability that costs billions and billions of euros. You will lose then in that scenario, you would lose the ultimate guarantor of our freedom, which is the US nuclear umbrella. Uh, so, hey, uh, good luck.
Um, all right, let's be honest here. I mean, I pretty much take everything Margarita [last name missing] says with a massive grain of salt these days. He's walking such a fine line trying to keep Trump on board and stop the alliance from imploding. So, I'm not even sure he believes half of what he's saying. But to be very fair, too, he does have a point here. Replacing the US security guarantee isn't something you just do overnight. It's a massive, expensive, complicated mess. Still, let's have a look at the simple math. If the non-US NATO members, essentially Europe and Canada, push their defense spending to say 5% of GDP, we'd be looking at a combined war chest of roughly $1.3 trillion. And to put that into perspective, that's significantly more than the United States spends on its entire global military machine today. So the narrative that Europe can't afford its own defense is a bit of a myth. Financially, the capacity is there, provided, of course, that we stop buying 27 different types of everything and start working as one.
So, does all of this mean I'm advocating for a messy divorce from NATO? No, not at all. That would be a diplomatic suicide mission. But we have to stop pretending that the old status quo still exists. Stop playing Trump's games and start building a European alternative. Basically, a mix of option two and option three.
But of course, crucially, what would all of that even look like? And I think there's three very important steps Europe needs to take right now, or at least as soon as possible. First, we need a unified foreign policy. Not 27 voices, but one clear European position. That means member states transferring some sovereignty to the EU level and, crucially, ending unanimity. If a qualified majority agrees on a position, it should become EU policy.
The second part is to start building an army of Europeans, not a replacement for national armies. That stuff would never work, but an additional integrated force under a more central European command. And to be honest, we can just look at the start of 2000 where UK and France proposed 60,000 troops, and we could do something very, very similar. And this force could also include some key enablers that Europe currently lacks. You know, the stuff we talked about before: logistics, intelligence, airlift, missile defense, that kind of thing. This force could also be set up in a way that it could just seamlessly slot into NATO as a strong European pillar. And in my opinion, this wouldn't weaken NATO in the slightest; it would simply rebalance it where Europe would have a stronger voice. And of course, we'd also want a European general here, not an American one.
And third, we really need to think about a European nuclear deterrent. And that could mean extending France's nuclear umbrella across all of Europe, or if necessary, developing a truly European option. Either way, this becomes essential if the American guarantee can no longer be relied upon.
Now, these are all massive topics, and if you want to dive deeper into how European foreign policy or a European army could actually work, we've made two dedicated videos right here and here. So, make sure you subscribe to stay informed. Thank you so much for watching and thank you to our sponsors. See you in the next video.