Consider This from NPR - What does a more European NATO mean for America’s national security?

Episode Date: July 5, 2026

An historic and dramatic shift is underway for NATO. As it tries to adapt to increasingly complex global threats and as the U.S. changes its priorities, there’s a push to create a more European NATO. David M. Cattler of the Center for European Policy Analysis talks about what to expect at this week's NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] episode was produced by Daniel Ofman.It was edited by Sarah Robbins. Our director is Michael Levitt.Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

It's consider this, where every day we go deep on one big news story. President Trump is headed to this year's North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit in Ankara. The leaders of the 32 countries which make up NATO will be hosted by Turkish President Erdogan. Going into the meeting, there's widespread anxiety about the U.S.'s changing role in the alliance. And President Trump has been dissatisfied with Europe. response to the war in Iran, telling NATO's Secretary General in June, We were let down, we didn't need help on this at all, demolish them in literally the first week, but it would have been nice if they would have said we'd like to help.

And in a social media post last week, President Trump doubled down saying about NATO, quote, ridiculous for the USA to continue along this one-sided path when the relationship is not reciprocal. They were not there for us, end quote. NATO allies have also been alarmed by the Trump administration's on and off again threats to seize Greenland. Despite the various points of contention, NATO leaders want an iron-clad commitment from Trump to collective defense within the alliance. For them, time is of the essence. According to recent European assessments, there are increasing threats of Russia next lashing out against Europe

if the tide of the war in Ukraine shifts in Kiev's favor. Former U.S. ambassador to Poland, Daniel Fried, told NPR that the balance has already shifted. Russia is beginning to lose, and the strategic advantage is beginning to shift to Ukraine, which is astonishing. considering the almost universal predictions of inevitable Russian victory and the size of the country. NATO allies are closely tracking those developments in Ukraine seeking ways to deter Russia, while President Trump continues to portray the alliance as a one-sided relationship where the U.S. gets nothing. Consider this. A dramatic shift is underway for NATO as the U.S. changes its priorities. Europe take the lead, and what could that mean for America's national security?

From NPR, I'm Don Gagne. It's considered this from NPR. It seems like NATO's been facing one crisis after another as it adapts to increasingly complex global threats. Ahead of the Ankara Summit this week, we spoke with David M. Kattler. He's a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, and has a senior fellow at the Center for European policy analysis and has previously served as NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Intelligence and Security. I asked him about the changing dynamics within the alliance and about President Trump's point about whether the U.S. gets anything from NATO.

I think it's important to take a look at the contributions that all the allies make. Certainly, the United States makes the largest contributions in terms of not just our U.S. defense spending, but also the forces we chose to allocate the capabilities that we chose to bring to bear. But that doesn't mean that the other allies aren't also making contributions. Many of them have also made contributions that are quite significant when you look at what their GDPs are and the capabilities that they're bringing to various NATO exercises for deterrence and defense. Military spending has been a significant sticking point for President Trump in past NATO meetings. This year, it's been reported that all European allies met spending targets of at least two,

percent of GDP, though there are still more deadlines in years to come. How much of a role did the Trump administration play in pushing, really pushing hard toward that result? The Trump administration in the president's first term and now in a second term has actually played a pretty significant role in attracting other nations' attention to the spending level and getting that agreement, not just to reach the 2% from the Wales commitment for some years ago, but also to the 5% commitment that came out of the Hague summit. But what's most important now moving forward that the spending is rising is actually translating the spending into real military capability. I think that's one of the things that this summit is going to focus on. I want to ask about boots on the ground.

Washington has threatened to reduce the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe. Why does that decision matter? I think the Europeans have reacted in the way that they have to some of these force movements that seem a little bit unannounced or just less discussed in diplomatic or in military channels because it's really a twofold problem. It's the military capability, which could be surged. I mean just because you're not there full time doesn't mean you can't get there rapidly. But I think even more so now with Russia's illegal war against Ukraine still going now, more than four years on, the potential for other crises to be caused by the Russians around Europe. They're looking at the placement and the numbers of American troops. And in fact, some European

troops that are deployed for various NATO purposes as signals of the alliances resolve. You have said that as the U.S. commitment to European defense wanes, NATO needs sufficient time to adapt to that new reality. What kind of timeline are we talking about? Well, I think, Don, it depends on the scenario and the capability sets that would need to be brought to bear. What's really important right now is that European governments have reached a really important conclusion. And that's that regardless of who occupies the White House, Europe needs to be capable of carrying more of the conventional defense burden. Interestingly, recent polling suggests that European publics increasingly share that view. Europeans really want a stronger European pillar

within NATO, not to replace the United States, but to make the alliance more resilient. Now, there's another factor, though, that's on a lot of Europeans' minds, and that's how long would it take for Russia after a war in Ukraine or even during a war to have military capability to threaten them. And I think in broad terms, what you tend to hear is the closer you are to Russia, the shorter you believe that timeline to be. Some nations might tell you 12 months to 18 months, but all allies agree that Russia is an adversary to the alliance and that their appetite is not necessarily satisfied with the military conflict in Ukraine alone. The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, says he's preparing for a potential Russian lightning offensive into his country, a NATO country.

That's the kind of thing you were just talking about. The closer you are to Russia, the more worried you are. How realistic are those concerns? Well, those concerns are quite realistic. I think if you look just in the last few days, there's been reporting in the media about Poland being warned by the United States that that potential is there. in fact, for Russia to either directly attack Poland or to cause some incident that might involve military force. The stance that Warsaw has taken is that they need to be able to defend themselves against the range of military scenarios that they imagine threaten them, whether or not NATO or any other ally is there for them. And correspondingly, they're making the political decisions necessary to find the resources to get that done for themselves. How will you define the success of this summit this coming week in Ankara?

The summit won't ultimately judge by the length of its communique or even by the size of the spending pledge that comes out of it. I think history is more likely to judge this summit on whether NATO actually prove capable of converting political consensus, all that increased investment in the growing public support into some real military capability quickly enough to preserve credible deterrence. And I think when you look back over the last four or five summits, the alliance has largely chosen its strategic direction. So now is the time for the alliance to decide to deliver. David M. Katler is a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. He previously served as NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Intelligence and Security. Thank you.

Thanks, Don. I really appreciate the time. This episode was produced by Daniel Offman. It was edited by Sarah Robbins. Our director is Michael Levitt. Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorney. It's considered this from NPR. I'm Don Gagne. Thank you.