NATO and Deeper Western Unity

By Andrew Petiprin

A major focus of our project at the Spe Salvi Institute is the spiritual and cultural proximity of the people of the United States and the peoples of Europe. Indeed, we are sympathetic to the idea of a greater Europe, of which the United States is now the senior partner economically and militarily, but for which the Old World remains the ancient spiritual capital. This union was enshrined politically in the creation of the NATO alliance in 1949 and subsequently expanded, but the real glue has been a shared heritage that should naturally point to common goals for the future. Today, even when relations among leaders of the NATO alliance become strained, as they have been lately over the question of Greenland, greater Europeans remain both appreciative and critical of each other because we know we simply belong together.

In this spirit, recent bellicose comments by President Donald Trump and members of his administration about American designs on Denmark’s territory have been deeply troubling, but not catastrophic. Likewise, Trump’s erroneous and insulting claims about NATO countries’ “staying a little back, off the front lines” during the war in Afghanistan, along with doubts that America’s allies would come to its aid in the future, were unwelcome but not irredeemable. Ironically, Denmark, a kingdom of 5.4 million people back in 2003, was extraordinarily reliable in the War on Terror compared to many other European countries, sending 12,000 soldiers to Afghanistan.

NATO is facing new difficulties, but its leaders have consistently affirmed its importance, recalling a near sanctity of its mission in days past, outlasting Soviet communism and then rightly opening its membership book to include a new collection of westward-focused nations from the old Soviet bloc. Any alliance takes hard work to maintain; and indeed, NATO has persisted and grown despite the absurdity of the early inclusion of Turkey, which has proved a fickle friend at best. More recently, Vice President J.D. Vance pointed out in his speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2025 that some NATO nations have begun to make startling deviations from the commitment to “individual liberty and the rule of law” mentioned in the original NATO charter.

We often forget many other internal difficulties among NATO members in the past. No sooner was the alliance forged than the U.S. stopped sharing nuclear secrets with the United Kingdom. The Americans left France and Britain high and dry in the Suez Crisis of 1956. In 1966, the French government withdrew from NATO and kicked its headquarters out of Paris. There was significant disagreement among members in the 1970’s and 1980’s over détente policy and nuclear arms limitations with the Warsaw Pact countries. In 1999, NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark nearly started a full-blown war with Russia during the Kosovo campaign until British General Mike Jackson refused to obey orders. Many Americans remember the kerfuffle with France over their refusal to be involved in the second Iraq War in 2003, leading to the phenomenon of re-branding French Fries as Freedom Fries.

But we are told now it is Greenland and tariffs, along with differences of opinion on Ukraine and Iran, which may suddenly be more than NATO can bear. Thus, European Commission president Ursula van der Leyen is talking about a future where the EU may seek greater “independence,” choosing new relationships with “the world” instead of the United States. Fortunately, after much public bluster at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the NATO alliance has once again held. America is not taking over political control of Greenland, nor will it punish its allies economically for sticking up for the territorial claims of Denmark. Indeed, with popularist movements gaining momentum in several NATO nations, it is instead the reign of Davos anywhereism that appears to be in deeper trouble than the old transatlantic partnership.

Did Europe call the American president’s bluff with a better hand? Has the bully simply backed down when met with resistance? Or are Trump’s intramural insults of NATO allies, after their initial sting, somehow useful as a wake-up call for the rest of the alliance to take greater pride in their own capabilities, invest more in their own defense, and thereby strengthen the relationship with better parts re-assembled as a more formidable whole?

No less an intellectual luminary than historian Niall Ferguson believes Trump has succeeded by employing his own version of the classic Russian tactic of “maskirovka” – a form of deception useful even with friends to ensure they worry more about an unlikely or even impossible situation than a real one in which they would otherwise be tempted to interfere (e.g. Ukraine and Iran). It is certainly a cynical strategy, and one could imagine its potential to create new tensions in the future. It isn’t very friendly to send a message about what you could do to someone if you wanted. But maybe a shock to the system will prove to be in the best interests of the West as we prepare to face a possible clash of empires with China, ongoing frustrations with Russia, and a host of unanswered questions about Islamism within and without our borders. We must know where our strengths and weaknesses lie.

Even as NATO endures, therefore, the arrangements of the West as we have known them since the end of World War II, and even more so since the end of the Cold War, will evolve. The most significant change may be that the center of power on the eastern side of the Atlantic is shifting away from France and Germany and towards Poland. With this development, a deeper and more spiritual unity may become apparent for the first time in decades to those who want it. In his famous speech in Warsaw in 2017, President Trump referred to Poland as “the geographic heart of Europe,” and elaborated, “in the Polish people, we see the soul of Europe.”  He continued, “your nation is great because your spirit is great and your spirit is strong.”

Today, Poland displays its spiritual strength by resisting aspects of EU technocracy, but also in moving closer to the U.S., just as its neighbors wring their hands and look in vain towards “the world.” Perhaps Poland, long-conditioned by the original Russian-style “maskirovka” can play along in difficult moments with Trump’s more benevolent version of it, ultimately reaping the benefits for its own people while reviving the original spirit of NATO.

In an X post from January 21, President Karol Nawrocki asserted his own country’s growing strength, as well as its continued appreciation for America’s presence: “Poland has increased its defense spending to nearly 5% of GDP because we feel responsible for our own security. I assure you that Poland’s independence and sovereignty are very strong. I believe in our soldiers, in our readiness to fight anyone who would want to invade our country. But I also believe in the North Atlantic Alliance. The United States are very important for NATO’s eastern flank.” Finally, while speaking as part of a panel at the WEF in Davos, President Nawrocki said blithely, “Greenland isn’t for sale,” while at the same time stating soberly that Donald Trump is “responsible for [the] security of the world as leader and he would like support.”

Thus, Poland is no pushover, but it comes when it is called. Nawrocki reminded Trump and the rest of the world in  an X post on January 23, that “in Afghanistan, 44 brave Poles fell.”

President Trump’s detractors both within the EU and among the opposition in his own United States always imagine his worst motives. But what if the endurance and reliability of our eighty-year-old infrastructure is as simple as Nawrocki has expressed it? What if it is simply good news that America is not just any other country, but the most powerful nation on earth? And what if, despite new developments in world affairs, it is still best to enjoy her friendship and work to maintain the historic alliance? Finally, what if, despite occasional displays of unfriendliness or even spiritual poverty in Trump’s soul, the end goal remains something “great” that transcends merely material or territorial dominance?

On this last and, for us, most important question, we do well to remember General George C. Marshall’s call for a “spiritual regeneration” in his Nobel Peace Prize speech in 1953. What good are all the soldiers and diplomats if they do not finally serve a master beyond the presidents and princes of this world? Such a greatness of soul at the highest level, centered in the imperfect but long-cherished camaraderie among the nations of the West, is our language here at the Spe Salvi Institute.

To critics of the current trajectory of the western alliance, therefore, we borrow Ursula von der Leyen’s language and ask: Does “the world” really offer something better than this concrete hope, rooted in these shared commitments?

We think not.