Are we in the era of NATO 3.0?

I don’t recall seeing anyone use the term “NATO 3.0” until now. Or maybe I heard it and didn’t pay attention to it until now when the Polish Foreign Minister is using it:

Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister and a former defense minister [and husband of the American-Polish historian and political analyst Anne Applebaum], outlined the transformation of NATO after it was founded in the aftermath of World War II.

“NATO 1.0 was a clear defense against Soviet aggression and expansionism, and NATO 2.0 was a post-Cold War search for purpose,” he said in an interview, with the alliance looking outside North America and Europe and after Sept. 11, especially, to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Russia was seen as a possible ally and certainly less of a threat, and some European NATO members effectively disarmed, he said.

But with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, China’s rising ambitions and Washington wanting to shift resources to Asia away from Europe, Mr. Sikorski said, “NATO 3.0 will mean that Europe will take more of the burden for conventional defense and the U.S. will be more of a cavalry-over-the-hill kind of ally.” (1)

It’s true that for a time after 1989 NATO leaders actually did see Russia as “a possible ally.” The Kosovo War of 1998-1999 largely put an end to that hope. NATO formal declaration in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would become members of NATO finished it for sure.

The exclusively defensive nature of NATO has never been an entirely accurate description, even in the pre-1989 decades. The “Cold War revisionist” historian William Appleman Williams elaborated a more nuanced view long ago in his famous book The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (1959).

The EU vs. Disinfo website, which is not so hot on the whole “nuance” thing, not surprisingly dismisses the idea that NATO may not always have been a “purely defensive” alliance. It even insists that the post-1989 expansion of NATO wasn’t really an expansion: “the claim about NATO ‘expansion’ misrepresents the process of NATO enlargement. NATO does not ‘expand’ but considers the applications of candidate countries that want to join.” (2)

NATO countries in blue, 1990 (CNBC):

NATO countries in blue and light blue as of 2022 (CNBC) – Finland became a full member in 2023 and Sweden in 2024:

So, NATO didn’t expand, you see, it just got bigger and added more countries – including Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, all three of which were former Soviet republics.

It is possible for officially government-sponsored information services to provide, you know, accurate and quality reporting. But EU vs. Disinfo sticks closely to sloganeering.

It’s not surprising that the Polish Foreign Minister would stick to the official position that, “NATO 1.0 was a clear defense against Soviet aggression and expansionism.” But, in yet another case where multiple things can be true at the same time, NATO did organize itself around a military posture of defense and deterrence of a possible Soviet invasion. It was also the single largest element of American “force projection” and American strategic political influence. The fact that the US-NATO confrontation over decades with the Soviet Union was called the Cold War is an indication that it was not entirely a peaceful and benign one on either side.

It is also true that the Red Army never came pouring through the famous “Fulda Gap” to conquer West Germany. The Berlin Airlift confrontation also never came to a shooting war, but that was before the formation of NATO. Despite various incident like the Cuban Missile crisis and backing different sides in what were sometimes called “proxy wars,” the NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation stayed within the bounds of “peaceful coexistence.”

Deciphering the diplomatic reporting

I’m inclined to think “NATO 3.0” is a good name for the time since the Trump 2.0 regime took office in 2025. Though diplomatic conventions require some rhetorical dancing around even for the New York Times, it’s clear. One is that NATO members know that they cannot count on the United States to honor its mutual-defense commitments to them in case of military attack, even military attack by Russia.

Another is that the physically and mentally ailing Trump sees NATO as a kind of mob “protection racket” controlled by him. He made that clear in 2024 when he was running for President again:

Listen, NATO was busted until I came along. I said everybody’s going to pay. Are you still going to protect us? I said, absolutely not.

They couldn’t believe the answer. They asked me that question, one of the Presidents of a big country stood up, said “Well sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?”

He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” [I said,] No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want! You gotta pay! You got to pay yuh bills! (3)

The NATO members do not pay a membership fee to hire the US to protect them. There are agreed-upon targets for national spending based on a percentage of their GDP, which is really an arbitrary standard in terms of military preparedness but easy to calculate. And since other NATO members and NATO war plans rely heavily on US weapons systems, US defense contractors actually do make a lot of money from European military spending. That’s a big reason why, despite Trump’s general hostility to Europe, the Times reports

Though, of course, we know from long experience now that Trump does expect to get personal profits for himself, his family, and his cronies from his actions as President. So he really seems to understand NATO as a mob-style protection racket. As David Cay Johnston says repeatedly, “Donald Trump is the third-generation head of a four-generation white-collar crime family.”

The confrontation with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House early in his second term was a major signal to NATO allies that he didn’t much care about their concerns. Even more so, the experience early this year of European allies finding themselves having to prepare in concrete and immediate terms to a hostile military invasion from the US directed at NATO ally Denmark to seize Greenland as American territory also focused European’s leaders’ attentions in a very sharp way. And Trump has renewed his military threats against Denmark/Greenland and Canada just recently.

As we see in the Times article, in diplomacy-speak, the NATO countries talk about reassuring Washington on NATO burden-sharing and keeping the US engaged with European defense. What’s actually going on is that know they have to make collective-security arrangements that do not depend on active US participation. That’s a big task, it’s very complicated, and it’s very expensive.

According to the report, many NATO members seem to be using 2029 as a key moment for which to prepare:

Time may be short to prepare. German and many NATO officials say a battle-hardened Russia would be ready for a war against NATO by 2029, so the pressure is on Europe to become more “war ready,” as the Germans say, and on the United States not to create unnecessary vulnerabilities in the meantime.

As always, diplomats and war planners have to consider both the capabilities and the intentions of potential adversaries. That date presumably has more to do with projected Russian capabilities. Of course, we are hearing constantly from Ukraine’s boosters that the Russians are faring badly in the current war, so we have to wonder how strong their appetite for an even wider war even three years from now really may be. And we are constantly seeing optimistic (and likely overblown) claims that Russia’s economy is being badly damaged by the war.

Claims like the following always deserve a critical look: “European armies do not have enough troops, U.S. and NATO officials agree. For example, the British Army is at its smallest since Waterloo in 1815, with fewer than 70,000 full-time, trained personnel.”

Figures like that don’t tell us much. Imperial Britain also had a huge navy at the time. But no air force, no satellites and cyberwar resources, and no drones. Comparison of raw numbers of active-duty soldiers between 1815 and now tells us nearly nothing about actually present preparedness. And, also speaking of Ukraine, haven’t we been hearing constantly over the last year how Ukraine’s drone technology is revolutionizing warfare?

This also caught my attention:

NATO has been built to be led by an American supreme commander, with simultaneous control over American troops in Europe. The continent has competent generals, but no clear European command, since each ultimately reports to their own country’s political masters, said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official and director of the main defense industry trade body in Europe. Although European officials are normally either deputies to Americans or have an American deputy, overall command should remain with Washington, he argued.

“If there is only one American soldier left in Europe, it has to be” the American supreme commander, Mr. Grand said.

I’ll give the Times credit here for actually mentioning that “former senior NATO official” they quote is current head of the biggest European defense industry lobbying group. It’s way too common for media not to mention when they are interviewing former generals that they are currently working for a defense industry or defense lobby.

And it wasn’t mentioned in the Times article. But Yanis Varoroufakis on Bluesky is not impressed with NATO’s decision to become have Peter Thiel’s Palantir play a major role in NATO operations.

The link he provides is to a July 7 article in the Times of London: Nato quietly puts trust in Palantir to move troops and identify targets.

Notes:

(1) Erlanger, Steven & Jakes, Lara (2026): In NATO’s Next Act, Can Europe Lead? New York Times 07/07/2026. Gift link: <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/world/europe/nato-trump-rutte-ankara-turkey.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wFA.Z4ci.DFJskr8GTkSE&smid=url-share> (Accessed: 2026-08-07).

(2) DISINFO: Claims that NATO is an exclusively defensive alliance are stupid and shameful. EU vs. Disinfo 07/01/2022. <https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/claims-that-nato-is-an-exclusively-defensive-alliance-are-stupid-and-shameful/> (Accessed : 2027-08-07).

(3) Donald Trump says he 'would encourage' Russia to attack non-paying Nato allies. BBC News 02/11/2024. <https://youtu.be/x7HE6bCe24g?si=oFwUApvvtDdQwtHM> (Accessed: 2026-08-07).