--- title: How America's National Security Strategy Impacts NATO description: Robert Hormats argues that America's most recent National Security Strategy report raises serious questions. canonical: https://time.com/article/2026/03/09/how-americas-national-security-strategy-impacts-nato/ author: Robert Hormats article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2026-03-10T01:53:03.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-03-11T01:24:49.072Z article:section: Ideas og:title: How America's National Security Strategy Impacts NATO og:description: Robert Hormats argues that America's most recent National Security Strategy report raises serious questions. og:url: https://time.com/article/2026/03/09/how-americas-national-security-strategy-impacts-nato/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltd683c8287aeb1502/69af6f841d80acab658275cc/america-national-security-nato.jpg?branch=production&width=3840&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 675 og:image:alt: america-national-security-nato.jpg og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: How America's National Security Strategy Impacts NATO twitter:description: Robert Hormats argues that America's most recent National Security Strategy report raises serious questions. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltd683c8287aeb1502/69af6f841d80acab658275cc/america-national-security-nato.jpg?branch=production&width=3840&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  IDEASTime ideas # How America’s National Security Strategy Impacts NATO by [Robert Hormats](https://time.com/author/robert-hormats/) ## Robert Hormats Mar 10, 2026 1:53 AM UTC  The U.S. flag and the NATO flag stand side by side at NATO headquarters in Brussels. The U.S. flag and the NATO flag stand side by side at NATO headquarters in Brussels.Anna Ross—picture alliance/Getty Images by [Robert Hormats](https://time.com/author/robert-hormats/) ## Robert Hormats Mar 10, 2026 1:53 AM UTC On July 4, 1917, a top aide to General John J. Pershing, Commander of the American Expeditionary Force that came to the aid of France during World War I, gave an eloquent [speech](https://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/museum/past-exhibits/lest-we-forget-doughboys-sammies-and-sailors-great-war/lafayette-we-are-here) at the tomb of the Marquis de Lafayette, who played a critical role in the victory of George Washington's forces in the American Revolution. "Lafayette," he said with great reverence, "we are here." In the American Revolution, France was our strongest ally. Lafayette was America's leading military supporter there. Flash forward to 2026, and we see America's relationship with Europe deteriorating. The National Security Strategy (NSS) report [released](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf) by the Trump Administration late last year endangers what, for many decades, has been America's most vitally important and successful alliance. The main message of the NSS appears to be along the lines of: "Lafayette, we are no longer there. Your defense is up to you." The NSS historically conveys important signals, if few details. Other countries—friends and adversaries alike—generally take them quite seriously. Europe's former top diplomat, Josef Borrell, for instance, [described](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/13/trump-europe-embassy-parties-gloom-00689149) the NSS as "a declaration of political war" against Europe. Many European [observers](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrzjv1kykxo) also [interpret](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/insights-us-national-security-strategy-perspectives-russia-and-post-soviet-regional-expert) it as an implicit invitation to Putin to continue his war in Ukraine as long as he chooses. Some also fear, rightly or wrongly, that he could see it as a signal that he can extend his "special military operation" to other democracies in Europe, especially those in Eastern Europe that were once under the Soviet or Czarist yoke. And that there would be little or no American help to enable Europe to resist. The document has also raised serious doubts about the degree to which the U.S. will fully and consistently honor its commitments under Article 5 of NATO to help any and all member countries under attack. Much clarification is needed by Washington to reassure Europe on these points and to underscore America's full and credible reliability and preparedness to come through as a trusted ally. Secretary Marco Rubio has recently given a reassuring [statement](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2lrdq47149o) on this, but more of these, on a sustained basis, are necessary. Failure to do this on a robust basis would seriously undermine America's deterrence credibility in Moscow and around the world. In the words of Canada's strategically perceptive Prime Minister, Mark Carney, it would be a profound "[rupture](https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/rupture-can-the-past-help-us-see-what-comes-next/).” Putin would be the main beneficiary. As someone who served in various national security positions during the height of the Cold War and for decades thereafter, and witnessed a wide range of destructive tactics hatched in the Kremlin then and since, I believe it is clear that Putin has never had any intention of reaching a constructive agreement on Ukraine based on terms other than those that serve his interests—and his interests alone. [Negotiations](https://time.com/7338224/trump-ukraine-russia-putin-peace-negotiations/) have been a [mirage](https://time.com/7310132/trump-putin-summit-ukraine-alaska-2/). And yet even with the U.S. having undergone many months of fruitless negotiations, and witnessed the Kremlin's barrage of deception about its commitment to peace while making impossible territorial demands on Ukraine, opposing post-war security guarantees, and intensifying bombing of civilian as well as military targets, the NSS now seems to envisage a closer relationship with Russia. This would be a major mistake if Russia's current policies continue. And if we needed any more evidence of that, U.S. officials have [reported](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/06/us/politics/russia-iran-partnership.html) that Russian satellites are supplying Iran with information on the positioning of American forces. Leaders in Washington need to reassess and firmly reject the NSS and support policies that significantly intensify pressure on Moscow. Putin's [unwillingness](https://time.com/7309902/trump-putin-meeting-ultimatum-ceasefire-talks/) to make a constructive deal on Ukraine and give up his aggressive territorial ambitions is not surprising. Penalties for this unwillingness so far have been relatively modest. Europe's bolstering of oil [sanctions](https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-adopts-new-sanctions-against-russia-2025-10-23%5Fen) last year was a positive move to reduce Russia's revenues to fund its war machine. And both the U.S. and Europe have taken additional measures. But to further increase pressure and to force meaningful concessions from the Kremlin, U.S military support for Ukraine should be substantially intensified. The U.S. should permit and finance shipments of more and longer-distance weapons to Ukraine, which are capable of doing greater damage to oil infrastructure east of the Russian border. This would seriously degrade Putin’s energy infrastructure, sharply decrease his war funds and military assets, and thus reduce his military capabilities. To be sure, it is unsurprising that Russia has legitimate defensive interests that it wants to protect in these negotiations. Even during the Cold War, U.S. leaders recognized that. But the ones it is currently pursuing through its aggressive actions in Ukraine are not, which is why America should strongly resist them. President Donald Trump, Congress, and the American people should consider our policy toward Ukraine and the rest of Europe not simply for the importance at the current moment, but for the impact over the decades to come. And we should not be distracted by the war in Iran and other foreign military engagements. Longstanding and largely successful, American security policy in Europe is still of vital importance. It has brought an era of peace to Europe and America—and to Russia. Changes should not be made quickly, without thoughtful planning, or based on a single piece of paper. We must forge a resolute and sustained NATO strategy that serves our interests in the coming decades, and where Europeans themselves are closely consulted. [TIME Ideas](https://www.time.com/ideas) hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/03/09/how-americas-national-security-strategy-impacts-nato/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/03/09/how-americas-national-security-strategy-impacts-nato/"},"headline":"How America’s National Security Strategy Impacts NATO","datePublished":"2026-03-10T01:53:03.000Z","dateModified":"2026-03-11T01:24:49.072Z","description":"Robert Hormats argues that America's most recent National Security Strategy report raises serious questions.","url":"https://time.com/article/2026/03/09/how-americas-national-security-strategy-impacts-nato/","keywords":["politics"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltd683c8287aeb1502/69af6f841d80acab658275cc/america-national-security-nato.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Robert Hormats","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/robert-hormats/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltd683c8287aeb1502/69af6f841d80acab658275cc/america-national-security-nato.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"america-national-security-nato.jpg","caption":"","creditText":"","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/03/09/how-americas-national-security-strategy-impacts-nato/","name":"How America’s National Security Strategy Impacts NATO"}}]}] ```