A commentary published in a Russian outlet frames Washington's alliance retreat as a structural shift, not a personality quirk
A prominent Russian political scientist has argued that Donald Trump's hostility toward NATO represents not a temporary aberration but a permanent restructuring of American foreign policy — one that will outlast his presidency and fundamentally alter the transatlantic relationship.
Writing in the Russian-language outlet Kommersant on 29 March, political scientist Igor Zevelev contended that Trump's approach reflects a broader social and ideological shift in the United States rather than mere personal idiosyncrasy. "Trump is not an exception, but an expression of a broader social shift," Zevelev wrote, arguing that Americans have grown weary of subsidising the security of others in the wake of costly and inconclusive Middle Eastern wars, ballooning national debt, and mounting domestic pressures.
Zevelev drew particular attention to Trump's response to European allies' refusal to back the US-Israeli military action against Iran. After posting on Truth Social that NATO was a "paper tiger," Trump reportedly accused allied governments of cowardice while suggesting the United States would remember their reluctance. For Zevelev, the formula was telling: allies who do not help are, in Trump's logic, not allies at all.
The Russian analyst stressed, however, that Washington is not staging a dramatic walkout from the alliance. Instead, he described what he called a "quiet dismantling" — a gradual withdrawal from the institutional architecture of NATO through missed allied meetings, reduced participation in command structures, and a sustained push to transfer NATO's three operational command centres to European leadership. If realised, Zevelev argued, the goal of European-led NATO command by 2027 would produce an organisation that is formally identical but substantively transformed.
Zevelev also noted that congressional resistance has slowed but not reversed the process. A legislative ban preventing a rapid drawdown of US forces below 76,000 in Europe was, in his reading, a tactical constraint rather than a strategic reversal: the underlying objective — shifting defence responsibility to European shoulders — remained intact.
Crucially, Zevelev rejected the label of isolationism. Pointing to the strike on Iran as evidence of continued US interventionism, he argued the real shift is more specific: Washington no longer wishes to be bound by collective obligations. Alliances, agreements, and multilateral institutions are increasingly perceived by the Trump administration as constraints on freedom of action rather than force multipliers. "This is the new logic: leadership without obligations," he concluded — adding that such a posture no longer constitutes leadership in any recognisable transatlantic sense.
Note to the Reader
This piece is based on Russian-sourced commentary and should be contextualised accordingly. Zevelev's analysis, while analytically coherent, reflects a perspective that aligns — whether intentionally or not — with long-standing Russian strategic interests in weakening transatlantic cohesion. Readers should weigh the framing with that context in mind.
Illustration: Perplexity