NATO’s proposed reforms—whether NATO 3.0, pay-to-play, or a new coalition—are fragmented fixes that fail to address deeper structural rifts within the alliance. Instead, they risk intensifying militarisation in Eastern Europe and escalating tensions with Russia without offering a stable or lasting security framework.
NATO 3.0 — An Obsolete Idea
The idea of NATO 3.0 was introduced by Deputy Pentagon Chief Elbridge Colby in February 2026. This theory asserts that NATO must go back to what it knows best and concentrate on protecting itself rather than overstretching in regions such as the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world. This has been advocated by many US officials under what has come to be called a “return to factory settings” agenda.
This simply means returning to the NATO 1.0 phase, which was solely focused on the European territorial defence from the Soviet Union. Increasing defence budgets and burden shifting are key aspects of this idea. However, the growing US-EU rift and the intra-alliance divisions have been detrimental to the progress of the NATO 3.0 concept. Rather, EU states like Britain, Belgium, Spain, etc. have completely failed to increase their defence budgets up to 5%. NATO 3.0 is just a kind of last try to preserve the transatlantic partnership whose dissolution seems inevitable.
Pay-to-Play Model
The Trump 2.0 administration is also weighing a new design to run the alliance — a Pay-to-Play model. According to this approach, those member states that failed to raise the targeted defence expenditures will be expelled from the alliance’s decision-making loop. Moreover, the US troops could be rolled back from states showing non-compliance. Unlike the NATO 3.0 concept, which aims to recalibrate the alliance’s objectives, this model seeks to actually shrink the alliance to the size of a few.
Thus, NATO allies that do not meet the new target could be frozen out of decisions on expansion, joint missions, and triggering the Article 5 mutual defence clause. However, this idea is just like collapsing the alliance but maintaining the stance that European defence is alive. As many core member states, such as Britain, are not meeting the defence commitments, would they be kicked out of the decision-making process?
Coalition of the Willing
A third and very recent idea that is in the debate circles is to finally reject the NATO 3.0 or pay-to-play models, breaking the alliance and establishing a novel coalition of like-minded European and Asia-Pacific allies. This idea was first promoted by Trump’s former Special Envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, earlier this month. He explicitly stated, “It’s time to rethink the way our military is lined up. Maybe make another front with Japan, Australia, and any number of Europeans who are eager to join the fray. Even new Germany and Poland can contribute too. And don’t forget about Ukraine, which has been a reliable friend of ours as well.” This idea came into the spotlight as NATO failed to assist the US against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz.
This newly proposed idea seems to be inspired by the Shield of Americas — a novel US coalition of like-minded nations in Latin America to counter drug cartels and the foreign powers’ influence. The US is now pursuing a new strategy known as ‘Enlist and Expand’ in the Western Hemisphere. This strategy refers to choosing like-minded partner states and forming a coalition to counter threats collectively. The same could be applied to Europe. President Trump is already determined to pull the US out of NATO. And if it happens, the Trump administration could pursue its enlist and expand strategy in Europe to create a new defensive bloc of like-minded European counterparts. This bloc could primarily be comprised of states like Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Turkey, etc.
In response to this idea, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, following his visit to China, recently stated that the United States is promoting the idea of establishing a new military bloc with Ukraine in the lead. According to Lavrov, “Instead of focusing on Russia itself, the US wants Europe to take the lead in containing Russia. For this, the US is finally promoting the idea of a new military bloc to shift its focus from Europe to the Western Hemisphere and China.”
Reforming NATO Radically Isn’t a Solution
All three ideas, including the NATO 3.0, Pay-to-Play model, and the Coalition of the Willing, seem to be contradictory, yet they are complementary to each other. Whether it’s NATO or any other defence arrangement, the basic purpose of all is to contain Russia and create instability at its borders. The idea of the “Coalition of the Willing,” which closely aligns with the Trump 2.0 administration policies, is just a radical reformation of NATO. Under this, the US would bilaterally deal with target states, providing them with key security guarantees. States like Ukraine, Poland, Finland, etc., would take the lead in this regard.
It simply means no NATO at the Russian borders, but rather creating a dispersed network of states pursuing a similar approach to that of NATO. This will neither resolve the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict nor support the revival of US-Russia relations. The US must understand the key problem, which is not NATO or any other arrangement; rather, it’s the militarisation of Eastern Europe — creating instability at Russia’s doorstep. Thus, any step supporting this idea could further exacerbate the already volatile situation in Europe.
Conclusion
Both the US and Europe have realised that the collapse of NATO is now inevitable. Or, in the harsh words of Charles de Gaulle, “Treaties are like young girls and roses; they last while they last.”
Both parties are grasping at straws, trying to somehow preserve or reshape the European security architecture. However, the aims of both are the same: to counter Russia. This emerging reality is even more threatening than its predecessor. To create instabilities at others’ doors is a habit of the US – and the world is already witnessing the consequences in Ukraine. Throughout history, Russia has been forced to pursue an offensive path, and now the US is once again repeating the same script. The US and the EU, since they claim to want peace, should not adhere to conservative thinking in the present multipolar world order but rather take into consideration Russian demands and refrain from violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia.
Aleena Im is an independent researcher and writer and is interested in international relations and current affairs
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
