Transatlantic Convergence: Peace or Dormant NATO?

Europe’s Shifting Geopolitical Landscape and the Decline of the West

Mar 05, 2025

In response to the attacks by the nationalist so-called Boxer movement against foreigners and Chinese Christians, an international expeditionary force of over 2100 men under the command of British Admiral Sir Edward Hobart Seymour initially occupied the northern Chinese port city of Tianjin from June 10, 1900. The contingent provided for this purpose had been formed by an alliance of the so-called United Eight States consisting of units from Italy, the USA, France, Austria-Hungary, Japan, the German Empire, the United Kingdom and Russia. The German contingent consisted mainly of ship crews from the Imperial Navy. In the course of the operation against the Boxers, the corps advanced into the interior of the country, also to come to the aid of the foreign legation quarter in Beijing, which was also threatened and besieged by the insurgents. — Carl Röchling (1902): »The Germans to the front!« Foto: bpk

Dormant NATO: A Blueprint for War or a Strategic Retreat?

In recent years, the contours of transatlantic geopolitical relations have been redrawn in ways few could have predicted a decade ago. The Trump administration’s controversial plan for reducing NATO’s involvement in Europe—often referred to as dormant NATO, a framework that shifts most of Europe’s defense (or aggression) responsibilities onto its own member states—has now found an unexpectedly coherent echo in recent developments on defense spending within several European Union member states, including France, the UK, and Germany.

Although some warn of an impending split or “divorce” between the United States and its European allies (or vassals, depending on one’s perspective), such predictions frequently overlook the deeper background of the dormant NATO strategy (a strategy developed by the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Renewing America). Far from signaling a genuine rupture, the transatlantic bond—cultivated over decades—has merely entered a new phase of rearranging roles and responsibilities. Even Europe’s far-right parties, for all their nationalist rhetoric, seldom stray from the established parameters of this alliance. In fact, they fully endorse the new direction of events. As one AfD politician, Dr. Bernd Baumann, recently stated on television when asked about what Germany should do in the light of recent events,

“It's not enough to put in a few billion. There must also be a willingness to fight. The soldiers must also be prepared to die for Germany. So we must put the Bundeswehr on a new footing morally, militarily, and financially.”

Politics of the Spectacle: The Zelensky-Vance-Trump Meeting

Enter Friday, February 28, 2025, and the fateful meeting between Zelensky, JD Vance, and US President Trump. Drawing on Guy Debord’s theory of the “integrated spectacle,” the recent White House meeting highlights how political events can become grand, performative displays, often partly or wholly staged to manipulate public opinion. Ostensibly convened to finalize a peace plan that included a resource grab, the talks broke down—an incident that blends reality television drama with diplomatic negotiation. Whether intentionally scripted or fueled by genuine tensions (or both; at least, the White House made an effort to make every second available for public consumption), the entire episode underscores the ways in which some political elites appeal to emotions and spectacle rather than policy substance or evidence-based reasoning.

In Debord’s view, these repeated displays of spectacular governance erode meaningful discourse and normalize politics rooted in theatrics. As scenes like the Zelensky-Vance-Trump debacle become commonplace, the public’s expectations for reasoned deliberation and concrete solutions might diminish. Meanwhile, political elites capitalize on these spectacles—either by presenting themselves as bold deal-makers or by casting their opponents as roadblocks to peace. By foregrounding drama and emotion, they obscure the power dynamics underlying issues like defense spending, resource control, and the reconfiguration of alliances.

Yet the spectacle serves a larger strategic agenda. By publicly distancing itself from the Ukrainian quagmire while still portraying itself as a peace broker, the U.S. administration fosters an image of statesmanship and “peace-making,” even as it quietly directs the EU to shoulder a greater share of the military burden. On the domestic front, U.S. President Trump can claim cost savings and reduced troop deployments—an important angle amid cuts to social programs. Meanwhile, the EU leverages this spectacle to persuade member states to increase military spending and adopt a more assertive “defensive” stance toward Russia. Ukraine remains caught in the middle, its concerns overshadowed by the theatrical nature of great-power politics. Ultimately, this may be less about genuine peace and more about pressuring whoever leads Ukraine to cede resources or other concessions to foreign interests.

Dormant NATO in a Nutshell

At its core, the dormant NATO proposal does not signify abandoning collective defense (even though this option is also included). Instead, it seeks to recalibrate it. Under this paradigm, the United States would supply the nuclear umbrella and advanced logistics, while European member states assume frontline responsibility for ground forces, air assets, and potential rapid deployment. This shift is born of fiscal constraints, shifting American threat perceptions—particularly regarding a pivot to the Indo-Pacific—and the ongoing address of flashpoints in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

What this also means: The United States is not taking a seat at any multipolar roundtable. It is not even attempting to do so. Instead, it is hitting the pause button on certain military commitments in Europe so it can better focus on containing China and exploiting resource-rich areas in the Middle East. Handing more of the defensive and financial burdens to the EU also mirrors the current approach in Washington, where the Trump administration is, by many accounts, converting the federal apparatus into a war machine but aimed at other region’s of this planet.

German Elections, February 2025: The Dormant NATO Policy in Action

A more granular demonstration of dormant NATO’s growing influence can be found in the outcome of Germany’s latest federal elections, held on February 23, 2025. The ascendant figure, poised to become Chancellor, is Friedrich Merz of the CDU. In second place stands the AfD, led by Alice Weidel. On paper, these two parties could not appear more different. Yet both their platforms converge with Washington’s long-term strategic vision—one that actually predates the Trump administration. In fact, from February 24 onward, public debates on transatlantic relations have moved beyond old binaries of isolation versus intervention. Instead, we see an emerging multi-tiered dynamic of shared burdens, rhetorical independence, and a reordering of transatlantic roles.

Independence = Militarization?

Merz has famously stated, “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.” Yet, his policy proposals translate to expanding the Bundeswehr, investing in new weapons platforms, and reinforcing Germany’s role within the NATO framework. In a widely circulated clip, Merz even spoke to schoolchildren about the necessity of preparing for war because of the Russian threat. Before the election, he also, at one point, grimly quipped, “Peace exists in the cemetery.” Meanwhile, Weidel’s AfD—reportedly receiving backing from billionaire technologists like Elon Musk and JD Vance—eagerly supports increasing military expenditures by a further 5% of the GDP.

Which begs a blunt question: What, indeed, is the purpose of arms if not to use them?

The dormant NATO proposal is anchored on exactly that logic: the EU must have the capacity to wage war, at least conventionally, so that the United States can remain the “backstop of last resort,” providing nuclear guarantees and logistical coordination only when absolutely necessary. As detailed in Project 2025, this plan redefines the longstanding U.S. commitment to “burden-sharing” within NATO and instead opts for a “burden-shifting” framework (The Heritage Foundation).

A Note on the “German Question”: Military Ambitions Revived?

While the United States undeniably exerts immense influence, some European nations harbor their own imperial or neo-imperial aspirations. Nationalism is on the rise in several member states, and the nationalist fervor sweeping through Germany’s conservative parties cannot be written off as purely American-engineered. This synergy between U.S. strategy and European ambitions might sound counterintuitive, yet it proves how effectively “dormant NATO” harnesses the self-interests of local elites. Germany risks reverting to old habits, funneling excessive resources into defense industries at the expense of social welfare. Such concerns grow sharper with each new announcement of major arms contracts, whether for the Luftwaffe, naval expansion, or advanced cybersecurity units. Meanwhile, official public discourse presents these moves as “defensive,” a narrative facilitating a turn toward militarism that, ironically, intensifies dependency on U.S. strategic backing. Not to mention that the German government will buy military equipment and technology from US suppliers.

The 2025 elections underscore Germany’s paradox. On the one hand, leaders like Friedrich Merz proclaim a quest for “autonomy,” yet on the other, they deepen reliance on U.S.-designed strategic frameworks. The Merz government’s alignment with the dormant NATO model includes backing European Union “peacekeeping” troops in Ukraine—an initiative that Russia regards as an escalation. The infiltration of financial giants like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs into German politics ultimately points to how democracy becomes a façade for oligarchic governance rather than any genuine check on corporate or militaristic power. Indeed, the new budget before an actual new government is built under Merz will be wholly dedicated to militarization.

Looking historically, Germany’s rearmament evokes the model of a “garrison state,” reminiscent of Prussia, where civil society is often subordinated to the logic of permanent readiness. Musk/Vance’s backing of the AfD—focused on job creation through armaments—conjures the specter of a sort of military Keynesianism, using war production to bolster economic performance while slashing social programs. For its part, the Trump administration’s posture in Ukraine—prioritizing mineral deals over conflict resolution—follows a well-worn path of extracting profits under the label of security assistance. One might recall the “Scramble for Africa” in the late 19th century for historical parallels: the language of civilizational uplift was then used to justify colonial exploitation, much as the language of peace is used today to rationalize militarized economic grabs.

Political Economy: BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and Ukraine

It is no coincidence that Merz has ties to BlackRock while Weidel is linked to Goldman Sachs. The scramble to maximize profits in reconstruction, armaments, and resource extraction—particularly in places like Ukraine—represents the confluence of corporate and military interests. Such collusion evokes the critiques of anti-globalist rhetoric within the Trump administration, which professes to fight so-called “globalists” but, in practice, cements the power of global capital in the defense and industrial sectors. This synergy highlights the darker edge of “dormant NATO,” where more apparent autonomy for Europe might simply translate to deeper entrenchment of oligarchic and corporate-military networks.

The Unipolar World Order Marches On

The broader context behind dormant NATO reveals that the United States is not relinquishing its unipolar aspirations even if it draws down some forces in Europe. Pete Hegseth’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference, hinting that Europe should “lead at the front” against perceived Russian aggression so that the U.S. can refocus on the Indo-Pacific, reflect an overarching strategy.

Yet the impetus behind American retrenchment is not a newfound humility but rather what some might call strategic necessity. With ballooning national debt and a fractious domestic scene—further aggravated by Trump-era cuts to social programs—the United States appears to be seeking a cost-effective way to preserve its global hegemony. Delegating much of the European front to the EU, thereby transforming NATO into a “dormant” force from the U.S. perspective, allows Washington to better confront challenges in East Asia and the Arctic.

The Genesis of Dormant NATO: A Brief History

The very soil on which such strategic frameworks arise is the thinking exercises on war games as done, for instance, in Schweizer’s and Weinberger’s book “The Next War,” published in 1996, containing many of the geopolitical scenarios we are currently contending with. The seeds of the dormant NATO proposal trace back to the Trump administration’s first term in 2019 when unsustainable force deployments and budgetary constraints prompted a strategic rethinking of U.S. commitments in Europe. It was here when the NATO 2030 plan was unveiled, echoing the principles of what was to come. Project 2025, a policy roadmap, articulated a vision of reducing U.S. conventional troops on the continent while maintaining a nuclear deterrent and maritime dominance via the 2nd and 6th Fleets (Project 2025, p. 182). The dormant NATO framework also appears in The center for Renewing America. Rather than abandoning NATO, the approach aimed to compel European nations to ramp up their own military spending and personnel readiness.

This realignment is a radical departure from the post–Cold War status quo, in which the United States was perceived as the unrivaled guarantor of European security. A historical perspective helps clarify that NATO was originally constructed to counter the Soviet Union and, after 1991, continued expanding eastward in a bid to consolidate the unipolar order. Today, with the U.S. financially and militarily overstretched, the dormant NATO framework responds to concerns that America cannot—and should not—shoulder every security burden in Eurasia. Critics, though, argue that pushing European states to militarize simply reconfigures, rather than reduces, global tensions.

Lastly, there is a possibility of the threat of US withdrawal from NATO if and when the confines of its framework are broken (Center For Renewing America):

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.

Beyond the Cold War Binary: Multipolarity Without Ideology

Another crucial aspect is that today’s multipolar currents differ from the ideological divides of the Cold War in light of today’s apparent reshuffling of roles. The Soviet Union once championed socialist ideals, encouraging revolutionary movements in the Global South. Modern multipolar powers—like China, Russia, India, and Brazil—usually unite around more pragmatic concerns such as trade, resource access, and security autonomy, rather than unifying under a single ideological banner.

In this landscape, the United States seeks to isolate Russia from its potential allies in Iran, China, or elsewhere—a strategy partially designed to weaken Sino-Russian cooperation. Where once the rhetorical battles revolved around democracy versus communism, we now see discourses of sovereignty, security, and “fair trade” used to justify the rearrangement of alliances. Dormant NATO fits neatly into this new alignment, as Washington can claim it is not “leaving” Europe but simply “rationalizing” force distributions to handle the more pressing threat from Beijing.

Possible Futures: Where Do We Go From Here?

A More Militarized, Fragmented Europe
If Europe fully embraces its newfound directive to militarize, we could witness an arms race among EU nations, each seeking to wield decisive influence in the alliance. The risk of internal fractures grows, however, as budget priorities shift from social programs to defense.
U.S. Retains Ultimate Control
Even with fewer boots on the ground, the United States maintains nuclear deterrence and advanced logistical networks. In times of crisis, it can still dictate critical strategic decisions, relegating European militaries to the role of regional enforcers rather than global movers and shakers.
Gradual Peace Dividend—or Strategic Overreach
An optimistic scenario might see the EU develop robust defense capabilities that foster a form of balanced cooperation with Russia, defusing tensions. Far more likely, though, is strategic overreach on multiple fronts—Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, the Arctic—prompting a more assertive Sino-Russian response.
Global South Alignments
Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America weigh new relationships with either the Sino-Russian bloc or a newly configured Transatlantic alliance. Without a coherent ideological framework, these alignments remain fluid. Europe’s militarization could enhance or undermine its ability to partner with the Global South, depending on how interventions unfold.

Picture of the citation: “Spectacular power, which is so fundamentally unitary, so concentrated by the very weight of things, and entirely despotic in spirit, frequently rails at the appearance in its realm of a spectacular politics, a spectacular justice, a spectacular medicine, and all the other similarly surprising examples of 'media excess.'” — Guy Debord, *Comments on the Society of the Spectacle*, trans. Malcolm Imrie (London: Verso, 1990), [page 6].

Closing Note: Decline as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The dormant NATO model embodies the West’s paradoxical decline: clinging to unipolarity through increasingly desperate militarism. The CDU’s militarization, paired with U.S. mineral grabs in Ukraine, reflects a death spiral—crisis bargaining in which leaders double down on failed strategies to avoid confronting decline.

Yet alternatives exist. Such as investing in diplomacy, climate resilience, and global equity which all would offer a path away from zero-sum brinkmanship. Similarly, revitalizing democratic deliberation, not surrendering to corporate-military diktats could offer a new path forward.

The question is whether transatlantic societies will awaken to these choices—or sleepwalk into catastrophe. As spectacular governance becomes normalized—mirroring Guy Debord’s warnings about illusions of transparency and orchestrated drama—our ability to demand accountability, nuanced policy, and genuine diplomacy may erode further.

I look forward to reading your comments and continuing the conversation. After all, it’s through robust debate and open exchange that we truly come to understand the challenges—and the opportunities—that lie ahead.

Have thoughts on Europe’s new militarized posture or America’s partial withdrawal from Ukraine? Is dormant NATO a necessary recalibration or a prelude to bigger conflicts ahead? Let’s keep this dialogue going.

Resources (as provided or cited in the text)

The Heritage Foundation. Project 2025: A Mandate for Leadership (Comprehensive framework for the dormant NATO concept)
Hegseth, Pete. "Opening Remarks by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at Ukraine Defense Contact Group (As Delivered)." U.S. Department of Defense, February 12, 2025. Brussels, Belgium.
Meadowcroft, Micah. "‘Dormant NATO’ Is the Best Hard Choice." The American Conservative, [01.April 2024]. (Insights into the shift from “burden-sharing” to “burden-shifting” in U.S. foreign policy)
Meadowcroft, Micah, and Sumantra Maitra. "Q and A: A ‘Dormant NATO’ Supplemental." America Renewing, May 3, 2024.
Licon, Adriana Gomez. "What They Said: Trump, Zelenskyy and Vance’s Heated Argument in the Oval Office." Associated Press, last updated February 28, 2025.
NATO 2030
Baumann, Dr. Bernd. "Trump ist doch kein Idiot❗ (ZDF-Interview)." X (formerly Twitter), March 1, 2025, 7:25 p.m.
Martin, Garret. "Germany’s Chancellor-in-Waiting Prioritizes ‘Real’ Independence from the US − but What Does That Mean and Is It Achievable?" The Conversation, February 25, 2025.
dpa Baden-Württemberg. "CDU-Grundsatzprogrammkonferenz: Merz: 'Frieden gibt es auf jedem Friedhof'." Die Zeit, March 8, 2024.
Debord, Guy. Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. Translated by Malcolm Imrie. London: Verso, 1990.
Weinberger, Caspar, and Peter Schweizer. The Next War. Washington, DC: Regnery, 1996.

Support Independent Analysis

If you found this deep dive into NATO’s current developments valuable, consider supporting my work:

Subscribe to this Substack for more long-form analysis of European politics.
Share this article with friends, colleagues, or social media—debate thrives when ideas circulate.

Democracies fray when scrutiny fades. By subscribing or sharing, you help sustain independent journalism that cuts through noise and dogma.

Contact:

Bluesky: @themindness.bsky.social

X: @Nen_senb