The alliance, which was once a cornerstone of European security, has now become a «faint ghost», and the European continent, once sheltered under this alliance, has been left exposed to numerous threats in a world that no longer fears ghosts. In this context, the tension between NATO allies, especially with Washington, has become noticeable. US President Donald Trump has adopted sharp and firm stances, reflecting a fundamental reassessment of the feasibility of the United States continuing to invest in European security. The cornerstone of NATO, which had been important for decades after helping the West win the Cold War and allowing Europe to prioritize social spending over defense, is today on the brink of collapse. As the West faces new challenges, such as the conflict with Iran, questions are being raised about the fate of this alliance, which was once the cornerstone of Western security. When the US President, the main guarantor of the alliance, doubts its viability, it undermines the foundations of the alliance. Another sign of NATO's declining credibility appeared earlier this month in Cyprus, when drones breached the airspace of the Akrotiri area, which houses a British military base. Despite expectations of a unified response from NATO, what followed were merely bureaucratic whispers, while Greece, which has relatively strong military capabilities, quickly responded by sending aircraft and naval vessels to counter these threats, whereas NATO showed no effective action. From here, a bitter question arises: if NATO is unable or unwilling to respond to attacks on the territory of one of its founding members, what is the point of its continued existence to perform its primary mission? This question places Europe before a harsh reality: the transition from a «protected Europe» to a «fragile Europe», a shift that reflects the security crisis the continent faces in the 21st century. Moreover, NATO was not originally equipped to handle the complex, multipolar challenges of today's world. The alliance has failed to resolve the ongoing Ukrainian crisis for five years, has failed to secure Europe's southern flank against asymmetric threats, and has failed to present a united front against the Iranian regime. And despite all these failures, Trump's presidency is not the reason for its potential demise, but rather a manifestation of NATO's decline and loss of internal unity. In this context, the question arises: how will Europe be secure in a world without NATO's influence? The answer seems disheartening, as Europe has long hidden behind security guarantees that it did not fully support, neither financially nor politically, and now finds itself in a position of cold calculation and purely commercial dealings. If European capitals refuse to stand with the United States against Iran, it is unlikely that Washington will stand with them in the Baltic Sea. On the other hand, how can Trump ask for Europe's support in the Middle East after he finally threatened to invade Greenland, an island that belongs to Denmark, a NATO member. This mismatch in common interests is reflected in the declining American protection for the Old Continent, while Europe is not ready to stand alone. It is clear that the world is moving towards a new reality where traditional alliances are no longer the foundation, but rather «alliances of the willing» between countries that share clear and specific interests. Major powers are now supporting their strategic interests through direct partnerships aimed at achieving tangible results, instead of the fragile agreements and formal alliances that are a thing of the distant past. Trump's speeches were probably shocking to many, but they were a harsh wake-up call that Brussels has tried to ignore for years. Is NATO still an influential military force, or has it become just a symbol and a relic of the past? Despite the alliance's flag still flying over Brussels and its committees continuing to meet regularly to discuss alliance-related issues, there is a growing sense of anxiety among its officers and staff. Although official data continues to show NATO's full readiness to defend the territories of its member states, the reality on the ground, especially in the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean, reveals a different and real picture of the alliance, characterized by fragility and weakness, far from the stated image. In reality, this alliance, existing on paper and in data, shows clear hesitation in performing its role as a real deterrent force. It must be said that the US President is merely the most outspoken of observers pointing to a decline that has been accumulating for decades, and the bitter truth is that even if NATO officially survives this era of change and continues to exist as a weary organization, it will lose its importance if its words no longer resonate strongly, supported by bases, and if the resolve of the countries that form it and their readiness to face dangers that may befall them weakens. As for the European Union, if it wants to be a strong player on the international stage, it must stop relying on a security shield that is increasingly appearing to be nothing more than an illusion. Currently, Europe is faced with a choice, and no third option is available: either build strong and independent defense capabilities and be prepared to use them if necessary, which will make it respected, or prepare to live in a world that is no longer protected by the privileges that were prevalent in the past.
