Washington, DC — Over the weekend in London, European leaders gathered with a single goal — to find a path to peace in Ukraine. Officials were careful to downplay any suggestion that the combative February 28 White House meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US President Donald Trump had inflicted real damage on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but the unease was palpable.

Behind closed doors and beneath carefully worded statements, one question refused to fade: Can NATO endure when its most powerful member sends mixed signals about its commitment?

Trump, as always, didn't hold back. Upset by the Ukrainian leader's remarks on the bleak prospects of peace with Moscow, he took to Truth Social, declaring, "This is the worst statement that could have been made by Zelenskyy, and America will not put up with it for much longer!"

Intended to project strength, experts say it signalled something else — a widening rift between Washington and Kiev and, by extension, a crack in NATO's unity.

Pierre Moreau, a Brussels-based NATO observer, tells TRT World, "This kind of language chips away at the trust that holds alliances together. It makes you wonder if the post-World War II security order can survive today’s political chaos."

Meanwhile, the UK and France are pushing ahead with their own version of a "coalition of the willing," a strategy aimed at securing an eventual ceasefire in Ukraine. That includes plans for deploying military assets and, if needed, boots on the ground — a move that hints at growing European frustration with waiting on Washington.

Paris has moved a step further and declared possibility of using its nuclear deterrent to protect the continent from Russian threats, amid concerns over potential US disengagement.

"It's a signal that some European leaders are preparing for a future where they can't always rely on the US," Moreau adds.

That uncertainty has been creeping into the conversation for years, but it’s becoming harder to ignore. Republican Senator Mike Lee, never shy about his views, recently posted: "It's time to leave NATO and the UN." Elon Musk, Trump's key ally and the world’s richest man, in his usual casual style, replied, "I agree."

It is easy to dismiss such remarks as online bluster, but when prominent figures openly question NATO’s relevance, the debate takes on a new weight. 

Moreau notes, "When this kind of rhetoric goes mainstream, it tells you there's a shift happening. Some in Washington see NATO as a Cold War relic rather than an indispensable alliance."

Trump sympathises with Russia's opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine

Trump says he understands Russia's concerns about having a NATO member right at their border, saying he hopes he could end the war before his first six months.

🔗

Trump's criticism of bloc

During the campaign, Trump shocked the NATO bloc with his remark that Russia should "do whatever the hell it wants" to alliance partners that don't meet military spending targets.

Trump has long complained about European allies relying too much on the US in NATO and even questioned the value to Washington of being in the military bloc.

In his first term, his criticism of the bloc forced the majority of NATO states to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on building up their militaries.

Trump recently upped that demand to 5 percent of GDP while criticising European allies and showing readiness to cement ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He has halted US military aid to Ukraine and also paused intelligence sharing with Kiev. 

"The US remains a key player in NATO, but Europe will have to take on more responsibility for regional security — especially as Washington focuses more on its strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific," Jennifer M Ramos, a professor of political science and international relations at Loyola Marymount University, tells TRT World.

Inside NATO headquarters, there is little patience for such talk. 

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking after a NATO defence ministers' meeting in Brussels recently, made it clear that allies need to step up. 

"Doing more means spending more money, contributing more guns, missiles, troops and hardware," he said.

The message wasn't just for European allies — it was also aimed at an American audience increasingly wary of overseas commitments.

"There's frustration on both sides. Europe has long relied on the US for security, but with the signals coming from Washington, there's a growing push for more European autonomy," Moreau quips.

Is 'European Treaty Organisation' the answer?

That push has fuelled deeper discussions about an independent European defence strategy, one that could evolve beyond NATO.

Before departing for the London meeting, Polish PM Donald Tusk highlighted Europe's security paradigm and its over-reliance on the US: "500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians!"

"The idea of a 'European Treaty Organisation' is no longer just a think-tank fantasy — it is being actively debated in policy circles. If this gains traction, it won’t just be about military capabilities. It would mark a fundamental shift in how Europe sees its security role," Moreau notes.

"Challenges of the partnership include equitable burden-sharing, integration and/or coordination of NATO and EU defense structures, and shared strategic priorities," Ramos points out. 

"But there are also opportunities to enhance the EU’s deterrence posture and utilise advanced technologies to improve communication and efficiency."

Earlier this week, Germany's Christian Democrats and Social Democrats reached an agreement to ramp up defence spending and invest in infrastructure by reforming the constitutional debt brake and setting up a special fund. 

Conservative leader - and incoming German chancellor – Friedrich Merz said that German parties are committed to swiftly enhancing the country’s defense capabilities in response to rising geopolitical tensions and shifts in US foreign policy.

Berlin met NATO's target to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defence in 2024.

France and the UK have also pledged to boost defence spending.

The UK aims to boost defence spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, enhancing military capabilities and national security. 

France spends 2.1% of its GDP on the military, just above NATO's 2 percent target. President Emmanuel Macron has promised to increase the defence spending and urged all European nations to take their defence spending to 3-3.5 percent of GDP.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has presented a five-part plan to mobilise $841 billion for Europe's defence and to help provide "immediate" military support for Ukraine after the US suspended aid.

European Union was formed to 'screw' US — Trump

Trump sparked controversy after saying the EU was born to "screw" the US, saying they have done a good job at it.

🔗

Shared interests and values

Ramos, however, remains confident in the bloc's endurance. 

"NATO will remain the primary collective European defence mechanism, but Europe will navigate increased demands for autonomy in handling crises on its own where appropriate.

"It may invest more in conventional defense, while the US continues to provide nuclear deterrence. I expect greater flexibility in decision-making and more equitable burden-sharing."

For now, American troops remain in Eastern Europe, but there's quiet concern about what happens next. "There's no immediate plan to pull back, but everyone knows how quickly that could change," Moreau says. 

"Poland, the Baltics — these countries are watching closely."

NATO was built for a different era — created in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union. It has adapted before, but the challenges ahead appear to be different.

"Alliances survive because of shared interests, but also shared values," Moreau says.

"For NATO to last, it has to reaffirm why it exists in the first place."