Behind the Curtain: Sources and Deep-Dive Analysis on the Dormant NATO Concept and Transatlantic Convergence

Exposing Europe’s Re-Militarization and Washington’s Quiet Pivot from the Continent

By Photo: Sergeant Paul Shaw LBIPP (Army)/MOD, OGL v1.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34879116

For my dear subscribers, welcome to a thorough exploration of the forces shaping the “Dormant NATO” framework and what I call the “Transatlantic Convergence.” In my public posts, I’ve been teasing the idea that Donald Trump and Friedrich Merz (leader of Germany’s CDU) are not simply happenstance allies on the world stage or sudden enemies. Rather, their alignment is part of a broader strategic pivot already well in motion—one that might see the United States step back from Europe while simultaneously encouraging (or pressuring) European nations to bolster their military capabilities rapidly.

But there’s another dimension worth highlighting: European leaders aren’t purely under America’s thumb. They are also partially heavily and ideologically invested in the current conflict posture. Indeed, some are so committed to confronting Russia or boosting “European sovereignty” that they risk stoking tensions to a dangerous degree. So, yes, Europe is very much adopting Washington’s script, but as with any complex relationship, there’s more than one motivation at play—especially now that a subset of the EU’s political (and possibly economic) class feels emboldened to test the boundaries of NATO’s “defensive” character.

Below, you’ll find a breakdown of the key sources, vital quotes, and broader theoretical frameworks informing this perspective. We’ll also address some rather stark statements from the Center for Renewing America and the European Council on Foreign Relations that highlight exactly how and why this “dormant” concept for NATO might have been years in the making—regardless of who occupies the White House.

---

1. The Analytical Framework

I begin every deep dive, every piece I write, with a broad question: Are we witnessing a genuine strategy shift, change, or a repackaged version of the same old status quo? To find answers, I rely on policy documents, official speeches, public events, and academic theories that help parse the difference between PR theatrics and substantive change or substantive doubling down on the status quo. “Dormant NATO” is a crystallization of this question. On paper, it’s a radical departure from decades of American-led security in Europe. In practice, it may be more about rhetorical flourish and burden-shifting than about the U.S. truly pulling the plug on NATO.

Recent news underscores this apparent and new tension: European governments are openly discussing whether to send regular troops into Ukraine, not just military “advisors.” If implemented, that could mark a formal entry into the conflict, exactly the kind of provocative action that even some U.S. hawks fear might backfire. So, is Europe acting independently here or merely fulfilling their interpretation of the blueprint by Washington think tanks and currently leading Republicans?

---

2. Primary Sources and Key Quotes

a. The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025

“Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe.”

And this one:

Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations.

The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring resolution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century.

And this part here:

The People’s Republic of China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” which is an imaginary term non-existent in international discourse. The United States should work with like-minded Arctic nations, including Russia, to raise legitimate concerns about the PRC’s so-called Polar Silk Road ambitions.

Context: These statements are the heart of the so-called “Dormant NATO” proposal—fewer U.S. boots on the ground but a boost to NATO. The aim? Freeing American military and financial resources for the Indo-Pacific, where China looms large in this think tank’s perception.

b. Center for Renewing America, Q&A on Dormant NATO

“A member state that picks war with Russia, inviting retaliation, will have voided the protection of Article 5. The election of governments in NATO member states that actively seek a conflict with Russia and agitate for one should also result in an American withdrawal. Recent calls for European powers to send regular troops into Ukraine, rather than advisors, are a reckless escalation. Such a mobilization would mark a formal entry into the conflict and a repudiation of NATO’s defensive character.
…The refusal of Germany, France, or other large members of NATO to adequately fund their defense, or their public resistance to the transition to a ‘dormant NATO’ posture, could result in a future scenario where, as then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates once warned, a future generation of Americans might not find it in the interest of the US to continue to subsidize European defense, eventually leading to a total US withdrawal from NATO. This includes any new promises made to expand NATO, in particular promises of accession to Ukraine and Georgia.

Active potential interference in internal US electoral politics by NATO governments including taking sides in domestic debates on American foreign policy, might in future result in not only withdrawal from the alliance as a whole but sanctions on guilty member states.”

Context: This passage is notable for two reasons. First, it clarifies that if any European state becomes the aggressor (actively picking a fight with Russia), the U.S. would consider leaving NATO—an extreme measure that flips the usual assumption that Article 5 is ironclad. Second, it underscores longstanding frustrations with European “defense” underfunding. Third, it considers the possibility of NATO governments interfering in any way in US electoral politics as a case for leaving NATO. In any case, the possibility of the US leaving NATO seems to be on the table if and when European governments do not toe the line as expected.

c. European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) 2024 Webinar on Dormant NATO

“Trump has controversially stated that he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t meet the 2% defense spending target. Conversely, if President Biden is re-elected, NATO may still struggle as the administration juggles European defense commitments with the rising threat from China.”