Donald Trump is once again demonizing NATO, despite NATO Secretary Mark Rutte’s ongoing submissive attitude towards the U.S. President in their latest meeting:
“In a post shared to Truth Social after the meeting, the US President said: “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.”
Once again, Trump ignores that NATO was with the United States when it mattered most. The first and only time Article V of the NATO charter was invoked was when NATO invoked it to defend the United States after the 9/11 attacks. NATO countries – including Canada – sent troops to Afghanistan to fight on behalf of the United States, and suffered casualties (158 Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan) in that effort.
Yet, neither that truth nor the fawning behaviour of the NATO Secretary General has stemmed the tide of Trump’s threats:
Trump is angry that NATO countries didn’t participate in the conflict with Iran – a conflict Trump planned without involving NATO countries and which was handled in a chaotic and rhetorically immoral manner – as Trump threatened the destruction of the Iranian civilization, as contrasted with directing anger towards the regime that oppresses the Iranian People. Trump is also ignoring the fact that after his threats against Canada and Greenland (the latter of which he is renewing), and his ongoing pro-Russia foreign policy actions, there is little trust in the motives of his Administration.
NATO would remain powerful even without the U.S.
While a full U.S. departure from NATO remains unlikely at this point, let’s game it out. The loss of the U.S. would be disastrous for NATO and would represent a massive strategic victory for Russia, yet NATO would remain a powerful alliance. Let’s compare an estimate of NATO’s strength vs Russia, with the U.S. excluded:
NATO (without U.S.) vs. Russia: Military Comparison
| Category | NATO (excl. U.S.) | Russia |
|---|---|---|
| Active military personnel | ~2.11 million | ~1.1 million (deployed/active); ~1.32 million total |
| Combat aircraft | ~2,100 | ~1,500 total fleet; est. fewer than 650 combat-ready tactical aircraft (RAND) |
| Main battle tanks | ~3,000+ | ~2,730 active; ~3,000 additional in storage (condition varies) |
| Nuclear warheads (UK + France) | ~500 | ~5,580 |
| Defense spending (2024) | ~$500B (est.) | ~$109B—$145B (est.) |
Now, let’s consider how powerful NATO+Ukraine without the United States would be vs Russia:
NATO (without U.S.) + Ukraine vs. Russia: Military Comparison
| Category | NATO excl. U.S. + Ukraine | Russia |
|---|---|---|
| Active military personnel | ~3.01 million | ~1.1–1.32 million |
| Combat aircraft | ~2,237 | ~1,500 total fleet; est. fewer than 650 combat-ready tactical aircraft (RAND) |
| Main battle tanks | ~4,100+ | ~2,730 active; ~3,000 in storage |
| Nuclear warheads | ~500 (UK + France) | ~5,580 |
| Defense spending | ~$565B (est.) | ~$109—145B (est.) |
Note on Ukraine figures: Ukraine fields approximately 900,000 active personnel, 137 combat aircraft, and roughly 1,100 main battle tanks, including Western-supplied Leopard 2s, Challengers, and Abrams alongside Soviet-era platforms. Ukraine’s forces are the most battle-hardened in Europe, though they remain heavily dependent on Western resupply. Defense spending is approximately $53–65 billion annually, representing roughly 26% of GDP.
Russia would find itself significantly outmatched by NATO, aside from nuclear weapons. And while Russia’s 10-1 advantage in nuclear weapons appears formidable, any war that results in the firing of even a dozen or so nuclear weapons would lead to the near-total destruction of both sides. The 500 nuclear weapons possessed by France and the UK are more than enough to provide a credible deterrent, and given the large uranium deposits of some NATO countries – particularly Canada – and the high per capita GDP and high education level of many NATO nations, it would be possible to rapidly scale up nuclear weapon production. And with Ukraine added to NATO, the balance shifts even more in NATO’s favour, meaning Canada would remain ensconced in a powerful defensive alliance.
Canada’s rational national interest
Even if the U.S. left NATO, it would be rational for Canada to remain. Protecting our North would be easier with NATO partners like the UK and the Nordic nations helping out rather than trying to go it alone. The nuclear deterrent provided by France and the UK would help protect against threats from Russia, and Canada’s immense uranium deposits could – as mentioned – help our allies build more of those weapons. Our historic ties to the United Kingdom and France, as well as the large Eastern European diaspora communities in Canada, also provide strong links to many NATO allies. Further, a U.S. departure from NATO would mean the U.S. heading down the path of right-wing authoritarian collectivism, aligning more with nations like Russia than with traditional U.S. allies. That’s a political path Canada is unlikely to follow, and while the U.S. would likely reverse course in time, that gap period would be a period of vulnerability that Canada could mitigate by deepening ties with NATO partners that remain truer to the values of rationality, individual freedom, and free economic exchange. Thus, no matter what the U.S. does, it is in Canada’s interest to remain in NATO to protect our security and protect the values held by a large portion of our Citizens.
Spencer Fernando
I am 100% Independent. I don't take government media subsidies, and I never will. My work is funded entirely by readers — no grants, no strings, no obligations to anyone but you.
If you find value in my independent perspective, consider making a donation:
If you want to support my work on a monthly basis and access all of my long-form writing, you can subscribe to my Patreon for $20/month or $216/year.