Trump is giving Putin reasons to test Nato

 Financial Times Europe 7 Sep 2026 The writer is a scholar at the Brook ings Insti tu tion and former senior US National Secur ity Coun cil offi cial Philip Gor don

 There have been con flict ing reports of the reas ons behind CIA dir ector John Ratcliffe’s unusual trip to Moscow two weeks ago. Some sug gest his pur pose was to warn Vladi mir Putin not to attack Nato ter rit ory, amid recent intel li gence leaks that Rus sia was con sid er ing test ing the alli ance’s resolve. Oth ers say that he went to share his assess ment that Rus sia’s war against Ukraine is going badly and to urge Moscow to cut a deal. Still oth ers point to the pos sib il ity that Ratcliffe went to press Rus sia to cut off sup port for Iran. The truth may be some com bin a tion of the three. If so, it would be a wel come excep tion to the admin is tra tion’s tend ency to refrain from put ting pres sure on Moscow, des pite its ongo ing attacks on Ukraine and other atro cit ies. Far from back ing up Ratcliffe’s allegedly tough mes saging with policies, Pres id ent Don ald Trump is doing the oppos ite. His relent less bul ly ing of the Europeans — even as drone attacks and explo sions linked to Rus sia escal ate along side even big ger mil it ary threats — is weak en ing deterrence and increas ing the risks of war. 

Far from giv ing Putin second thoughts about strik ing Nato ter rit ory or escal at ing in Ukraine, Trump’s actual policies give Putin fur ther reason to believe he can do both without con sequence. Trump’s ambi val ence about Nato’s Art icle 5 defence guar an tee is long stand ing. He has linked his will ing ness to help defend Nato mem bers to them pay ing their “bills,” adding that if not Rus si ans “could do whatever the hell they want”. Last year he claimed “there are numer ous defin i tions of Art icle 5” — not exactly a clear com mit ment to respond force fully if a Nato mem ber were attacked. He has ques tioned the proven ance of sus pec ted Rus sian drone attacks on Nato ter rit ory, while at least ini tially tak ing Putin at his word when the lat ter alleged that Ukraine tried to attack his res id ence (which it did not). Angry at the lack of European sup port for his mis ad ven ture in Iran, Trump called Nato a “paper tiger” and its lead ers “cow ards”, and ordered a “recon sid er a tion” of the organ isa tion, leav ing open the pos sib il ity of the US leav ing it alto gether.

Bey ond the ques tion of the US inten tion to defend Europe if attacked, there are now also grow ing doubts about its cap ab il ity to do so effect ively. Ignor ing warn ings about lim ited stock piles of advanced muni tions and mis sile defence inter cept ors, Trump pro ceeded with the war with Iran any way, burn ing through muni tions that would be crit ical in a con flict with Rus sia. In Europe, the focus has been on the alarm ing implic a tions of such short ages for Ukraine. But they also weaken Nato itself. To make mat ters worse, far from respond ing to con cerns about Rus sian threats to Nato ter rit ory with renewed solid ar ity and a show of force, as one might expect, Trump is doub ling down with the mes sage that Europe is on its own. Indeed, only days after Ratcliffe went to Moscow, under-sec ret ary of defence Elbridge Colby trav elled to Brus sels to meet Nato allies — not to bol ster the alli ance but to rebuke them for not spend ing enough on defence and to make clear the US does not plan to con tinue to play the lead role in European secur ity. Colby reit er ated that US defence pri or it ies “are on the west ern hemi sphere and the First Island Chain [in Asia],” not in Europe. And he cir cu lated a ques tion naire to all allies about their sup port for the admin is tra tion’s broader for eign policy object ives, mak ing clear that a lack of full sup port would be taken into account as part of the US review of its forces in Europe, and could lead to troop with draw als.

 Deprioritising Nato and redeploy ing US troops away from Europe hardly seems an effect ive way of rein for cing deterrence against the risk of Rus sian attack. Hos tile Rus sian actions against Nato mem bers — often referred to by the euphem ism of “hybrid attacks” — are no longer a threat but a real ity. In the past few weeks alone, drones laden with explos ives were found at Leipzig air port and in Bul garia, and there have been explo sions at weapons factor ies and other sens it ive sites in Esto nia, Italy, Slov akia and the Neth er lands. Other Rus sia-linked actions have included sab ot age of infra struc ture, cyber attacks on gov ern ment agen cies and plots to assas sin ate defence industry exec ut ives. It would be encour aging if the Trump admin is tra tion were finally wak ing up to this real ity and if Ratcliffe’s trip to Moscow were part of an effort to make clear that Putin would pay a ter rible price if he attacked Nato ter rit ory. Sadly, there is little evid ence this is the case, which must be a relief to Rus sia and increases the risk of war.