NATO Is Dead

NATO Is At Breaking Point of Both Industrial Capacity & Internal Political Consensus

NATO ran from Afghanistan, abandoning years of fight. It fled again, this time from the Houthis in the Red Sea. In Ukraine, its air defenses, artillery, and armor lie broken and worn out. It couldn’t even retake Mariupol. NATO is finished. It’s practically dead.

Seven months into President Trump’s second term, the administration’s approach to the Ukraine conflict has produced no strategic coherence. It has failed to advance a diplomatic resolution or produce meaningful improvements in operational outcomes. The earlier claim that the war could be resolved within 24 hours has been discredited. The White House has not produced a ceasefire, nor has it presented a framework capable of altering battlefield conditions or shifting political dynamics. Instead, the policy environment is defined by rambling uncertainty, contradictory messaging, and the absence of sustained engagement.

Military assistance to Ukraine has slowed due to procedural review and formalised congressional resistance, with weapons deliveries increasingly delayed and funding subject to case-by-case approval. The administration has not introduced a functional diplomatic framework to replace reduced assistance. Current policy reflects inaction presented as strategic restraint, with support withheld absent clear conditions for reinstatement. Negotiations are mentioned publicly but lack an operational mechanism or defined objectives. The result has been paralysis, both in Washington’s policy posture and in the decisions facing Kyiv.

Russia has adapted to the current environment without difficulty, as it's military position remains stable, and its economy has restructured to absorb continued sanctions and redirect trade. Moscow does not consider the United States a credible actor in this conflict. Despite extensive sanctions and diplomatic efforts, the Kremlin continues to face limited coordinated pressure from Western capitals. Although U.S. secondary sanctions are now under consideration, implementation remains pending. Military analysts observe that Russian escalation has been restrained in part due to concerns over NATO response, international backlash, and confidence that limited objectives can still be met without crossing major thresholds.

On the battlefield, Western projections that Russia would be pushed back decisively have not materialised. Russian forces have captured key areas most recently Kurakhove and adjoining towns in Donetsk Oblast and continue pressing into Sumy and Kherson regions with sustained but costly gains. Ukraine’s substantial counteroffensive into Kursk Oblast in August 2024, penetrating over 1,000 km², represented a tactical surprise yet ultimately failed to reverse the broader strategic status quo. Simultaneously, Ukraine has employed Western weapons to strike Russian military infrastructure, including a missile attack on the Black Sea Fleet HQ in Sevastopol in late 2023. Although successful offensives have occurred, none have inflicted decisive disruption on Russian political aims. Instead, they have reinforced Russia’s capacity to adapt, softening the impact of Western support over time. At the same time, Ukraine faces increasing limits Western aid has been delayed by political debate, ammunition stocks are strained, and manpower remains stretched thin, even as Kyiv conducts limited cross-border raids. Russian drone and missile assaults on Ukrainian cities have also intensified significantly since mid-2025, with swarms breaching air defences more frequently and applying mounting pressure on civilian infrastructure.

In Europe, governments have adjusted to the reduced reliability of American support. Contingency planning has become standard practice across NATO members. National defence budgets across Europe have been raised through formal appropriations, domestic arms production has been scaled through targeted industrial policy, and EU institutions have initiated the construction of security frameworks designed to operate independently of U.S. oversight. These measures constitute a structural adjustment grounded in strategic necessity rather than short-term political divergence. The United States is no longer regarded as a credible long-term guarantor of European security. NATO now functions through a combination of informal power structures and selective engagement, reflecting the erosion of alliance cohesion and shared purpose.

In Ukraine, the impact of policy disengagement has accelerated the fragmentation of governance. Aid requests are processed with delay, conditions, and open scepticism. Oversight institutions have been dismantled, and the reform agenda once tied to Western financial support has been effectively abandoned. The presidency has lost administrative control and political consensus. The armed forces are overstretched, and civil infrastructure is under strain. Decision-making is reactive and increasingly shaped by external pressure rather than internal planning. The idea that Ukraine remains the centrepiece of a Western strategic project is no longer credible. The model that underpinned that project, based on legitimacy, shared values, and consistent support, has ceased to function.

Within NATO, the position taken by the United States has validated opposition to continued support for Kyiv. Governments in Hungary and Slovakia have formalised resistance to new funding packages. Political parties across Europe have adopted more critical positions. Trump’s administration has given political cover to these actors. Alliance cohesion has weakened. The public narrative of unity is contradicted by the growing divergence in national policies. The credibility of NATO as a coherent military and political bloc has diminished.

The broader foreign policy framework promoted by the Trump administration prioritises transactional engagement, reduced overseas deployments, and the rejection of longstanding multilateral obligations. These choices have strategic consequences, notably, the decline of the deterrent value of U.S. presence in Europe. Smaller NATO members have begun to reassess their security arrangements resulting in strategic ambiguity now defining the alliance. In this environment, adversaries have tested the boundaries of what the West is willing or able to enforce. Russia has expanded its influence in the process, whilst China has deepened its engagement with the Global South. Iran has taken a more assertive position in its regional sphere after hammering Israel. These developments represent observable and quantifiable changes within the global security order. Kyiv remains institutionally unprepared for this transition, as the government continues to operate on the basis of political assumptions that are no longer matched by events. There is no strategic alignment between Ukrainian demands and the priorities of the current U.S. administration. Budgetary requests from Ukraine are evaluated primarily in terms of their fiscal impact and political cost within the United States. Security assistance is assessed through the priorities of domestic policymaking rather than based on strategic outcomes abroad. No senior official has provided a plausible vision of how continued investment in Ukraine fits into broader American strategic interests. The partnership has deteriorated due to procedural stagnation and a lack of sustained political engagement, rather than through any formal announcement or explicit policy shift.

The war has reached a point where military victory for Ukraine is no longer considered a realistic outcome. Diplomatic negotiations have not advanced, in the absence of credible intermediaries or clearly defined, enforceable conditions. Within Ukraine, the governing apparatus has shifted from a state of managed crisis to one marked by structural institutional failure. Governance in Ukraine operates under constrained conditions, with institutional capacity limited and decision-making increasingly ad hoc. International guarantees have lost consistency, reducing their practical reliability. The original premise that Western aid would be linked to governance performance has been displaced by conditionality driven by the internal political dynamics of the United States. This arrangement lacks long-term viability as a basis for sustained external support.

The Biden-era narrative of solidarity, shared sacrifice, and democratic alignment has collapsed. The current administration has not replaced it with a credible alternative. Instead, it has disengaged without resolution, reduced support without explanation, and allowed the strategic initiative to shift to external actors. There is no clear Western role in the conflict as it now stands. The armed conflict remains ongoing, yet the political framework that previously justified Western involvement has collapsed. Policy lacks coherence, intended outcomes remain undefined, and there is no consistent strategic direction guiding current engagement.

Russia’s position on the battlefield has shifted from defensive strategy to incremental, sustained territorial gains across multiple fronts in Eastern Ukraine. Despite widespread assumptions that international sanctions and military pressure would degrade Russian capabilities, Moscow has consolidated its hold on key regions such as Pokrovsk and surrounding areas. The Western narrative forecasting an imminent Russian collapse has been quietly abandoned by intelligence and defense communities. Updated estimates now acknowledge that Russia is consistently outproducing NATO states in key military assets, including artillery shells, drones, and air defense systems. In logistical and industrial terms, Russia is preparing to sustain a prolonged conflict and appears to be succeeding.

NATO, by contrast, has reached the limits of both its industrial capacity and internal political consensus. While member states have formally pledged to increase defence spending and enhance production, the delivery timelines do not align with Ukraine’s urgent battlefield requirements. European stockpiles remain dangerously depleted, and transatlantic military aid is increasingly symbolic rather than operationally decisive. The alliance’s traditional reliance on U.S. leadership, once a stabilising force, has become a strategic liability. With Washington consumed by its own political instability and upcoming elections, NATO’s outward displays of unity conceal growing institutional drift and misalignment.

Russia’s economy has now transitioned into a wartime configuration, allowing strategic prioritisation of military production over consumer needs. Reports from multiple sources indicate the expansion of key factories, mobilisation of skilled labour, and the implementation of production reforms across critical sectors. These developments show a state capable of long-term endurance rather than short-term dominance. The Western sanctions campaign, once seen as a strategic game changer, has instead fostered the creation of alternative trading blocs and bypass mechanisms. Russian trade with China, India, Turkey, and the Global South has surged significantly, offsetting losses from the European market. Energy exports have been redirected, while the global energy system has gradually adapted to the new geopolitical reality.

Rather than collapse under pressure, Russia has adapted and now escalates selectively and strategically. It continues to probe NATO’s red lines and tests Western tolerance for prolonged conflict. The emphasis from Moscow is no longer on speed or shock but on the gradual erosion of adversarial capacity over time. Strategic patience has replaced overextension. NATO’s hesitation has become an unintentional advantage for Moscow, allowing it to expand influence while its adversaries debate objectives. Ukraine’s inability to secure strategic breakthroughs has entrenched frontlines and left Kyiv exposed to a different kind of pressure, one that is cumulative, asymmetric, and political in nature.

Zelensky’s government is now caught between collapsing internal governance and increasingly fragile international support. The dismantling of anti-corruption bodies, erosion of civilian oversight, and growing opposition from nationalist factions are symptoms of systemic failure. Russia does not require a final military victory; it merely needs to sustain pressure as the Ukrainian political system implodes from within. Morale is low, conscription is faltering, and battlefield cohesion is visibly weakening. Kyiv’s requests for aid are now reviewed with hesitation rather than urgency, reflecting the West’s growing concern about governance, transparency, and long-term feasibility. The narrative has shifted: Ukraine is no longer seen as a secure investment.

Within NATO, political fault lines are widening. Poland and the Baltic states continue to advocate for escalation, while Germany, France, and Italy are increasingly driven by domestic considerations. Hungary and Slovakia have broken openly with the consensus, calling for immediate negotiations and scaled-back support. The alliance remains formally intact but functionally divided. If Trump returns to office, these divisions will harden into institutional paralysis. Even without his intervention, the broader trend is clear, strategic cohesion is eroding, and NATO’s ability to act as a unified military-political force is increasingly in question.

Globally, this war has triggered a structural realignment of power away from the U.S.-led unipolar system. Russia, China, Iran, and others are now coordinating efforts to circumvent Western financial mechanisms and develop independent security and trade structures. De-dollarisation, alternative payment platforms, and energy cooperation are no longer hypothetical, they are already reshaping global norms. The BRICS expansion, Asian regional frameworks, and growing South-South partnerships represent the institutional groundwork of a multipolar world. The West, meanwhile, is losing its monopoly on legitimacy. What once depended on shared values now depends on transactional leverage, and even that is slipping.

The post-Cold War order has entered terminal decline. The notion that liberal democracies can dictate global terms through economic coercion and moral rhetoric has proven untenable. Russia’s resilience is not evidence of superiority, it is evidence of Western overconfidence and strategic miscalculation. The credibility of deterrence has been damaged. The assumption of compliance has been disproven. What remains is a contested system without clear leadership, where emerging powers are learning to resist, adapt, and build new alignments outside traditional frameworks.

Russia understands that time is now its most powerful weapon. While Western democracies debate, defer, and divide, Moscow advances slowly but consistently. Russia faces no immediate pressure to accelerate its actions. Strategic ambiguity among opponents, ongoing reallocation of Western resources, and political disorganisation within adversarial states all align with its longer-term objectives. The conflict in Ukraine now functions as one element within a broader contest over institutional authority and international influence. This contest is no longer defined by a binary division of power; it has become fragmented, volatile, and increasingly driven by states and actors that no longer adhere to the frameworks they previously accepted. Ukraine is not only losing ground militarily; it is being marginalised by a wider transformation in the global order.

Authored By:

Global GeoPolitics

If a few more people choose to become paid subscribers, Popular Information could expose more lies, root out more corruption, and call out more hypocrites. So, if you can afford it, please support this work.”

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv

(Sergey Lavrov, Russian FM)