PROFILE: Off the Coast of the Caroline Islands, NATO Proves Its Resilience Despite Trump

Amphibious Operations with the Spanish Marines

Specifically, according to Reuters’ firsthand observations during its exclusive access, Spanish Marines conducted amphibious landing operations during these exercises, demonstrating operational interoperability that was clearly unaffected by high-level diplomatic tensions.

These joint landing operations are among the most logistically and tactically complex maneuvers, requiring precise coordination between the naval and ground forces of different nations.

Heavy Weapons Exercises at Camp Lejeune

French Marines, for their part, participated in exercises with heavy machine guns at the U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, according to details reported by Reuters, illustrating a high degree of tactical integration between allies.

These heavy weapons training exercises require a considerable level of mutual trust among the participating armed forces—a trust that appears to endure regardless of political disputes at the governmental level.

I find it remarkable that French soldiers are handling heavy weapons alongside their American counterparts just a few days after their own government was publicly rebuked by the U.S. president; this reveals an institutional maturity that far transcends the political egos of the moment.

A Critical Capability in the Face of the Russian Threat

The FLEETEX 250 exercises also included anti-submarine warfare drills, a military capability deemed crucial in the face of the Russian Navy’s growing submarine activity in the North Atlantic and in the waters off the American continent.

This ability to detect and neutralize enemy submarines remains one of the Alliance’s most technically demanding missions, requiring sophisticated equipment and constant training among allies.

Defending U.S. Territory, Not Just Europe

The deliberate choice to conduct these exercises off the U.S. coast, rather than exclusively in the North Atlantic or in Europe, underscores a shift in strategic focus: the defense of the U.S. mainland itself is becoming an explicit objective of Allied cooperation.

This development illustrates a direct response to growing concerns about the expanding reach of adversaries’ military capabilities, which are no longer limited to European waters alone.

I believe that this geographic expansion of NATO cooperation to include the U.S. coastline itself reflects a welcome strategic clarity: Western security can no longer be neatly divided into a “European theater” and an “American theater” that are isolated from one another.

Analysis by the former head of NATO intelligence

David Cattler, former head of NATO intelligence during Trump’s first term, told Reuters that these exercises send a powerful message about the ability and willingness of European nations to defend both sides of the Atlantic.

Cattler, however, qualified his analysis by expressing doubt that this demonstration would fundamentally change the direction being considered at the Pentagon, where the strategic review initiated by Hegseth follows its own logic, independent of operational symbolism.

Proof That Working Relationships Remain Strong

According to experts cited by Reuters, the engagement of allied forces at the operational level is an encouraging sign that working relationships between military personnel remain robust, transcending the political turbulence observed at the highest levels of their respective governments.

This distinction between the political level—marked by friction—and the operational level—marked by continuity—deserves to be highlighted as one of the most reassuring elements during this period of uncertainty for the Alliance.

I believe that this dichotomy between the political and the operational spheres is precisely what constitutes NATO’s structural strength: soldiers and sailors continue to train together even when their leaders are publicly at odds—an institutional resilience that deserves to be celebrated rather than taken for granted.

The Risk of a Future Decline in Cooperation

Despite this positive development, several experts cited by Reuters warn that if the Pentagon does indeed reduce the U.S. military presence in Europe, this could automatically lead to a decrease in the number of joint exercises in the future.

This prospect worries allied military planners, who view regular joint exercises as an essential pillar for maintaining interoperability among the Alliance’s various national armed forces.

The Turkish Issue and Adapting the Framework

According to additional reporting by Reuters, Turkey has also indicated that NATO is adapting to the new global security landscape, while clarifying that the United States is not completely withdrawing from its commitments to the Alliance—an important distinction amid alarmist rumors.

This clarification from Turkey aims to reassure the most concerned partners that the U.S. strategic review does not signify a complete abandonment of the historic transatlantic commitment.

I choose to remain cautious in the face of these two contradictory interpretations: neither the doomsday scenario of a total U.S. withdrawal nor the naïve optimism of an unchanged status quo likely corresponds to the complex reality currently taking shape within the Alliance.

The ambitious goal of 5% of GDP by 2035

These exercises come at a time when NATO’s European allies collectively committed, at the Hague summit, to reaching a defense spending target of 5% of GDP by 2035—a goal that would have seemed politically unattainable just a few years ago.

This ambitious budgetary trajectory, documented by several specialized analyses, illustrates the pressure exerted by the Trump administration, which ultimately led to a real and measurable acceleration in European military investment.

Countries like Sweden are leading the way

Countries like Sweden, with its recent contract worth several hundred million dollars for air defense systems, provide concrete evidence of this rearmament dynamic, which accompanies and reinforces the credibility of this type of joint naval exercise off the coast of the United States.

This convergence of equipment investments and operational exercises paints a picture of an Alliance that, despite its communication crises, continues to modernize in concrete ways on the ground.

I believe that this combination of budgetary rearmament and joint operational exercises constitutes the best possible response by Europeans to the doubts expressed by Washington: rather than simply protesting, they are investing and training.

European Officers at the Helm of Force Commands

An important structural development is worth noting: for the first time in the Alliance’s history, European officers now lead all three of NATO’s joint commands, which are responsible for operations during crises.

This transfer of responsibilities, documented in specialized defense policy analyses, illustrates Europe’s more assertive take on its own security—a development that Washington actively encourages as part of its burden-sharing strategy.

The United States Retains Key Strategic Positions

Despite this shift toward greater European responsibility, the United States retains control of NATO’s three theater component commands—namely, the naval, land, and air commands—as well as the Alliance’s highest military post, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

This balance between shared responsibilities and continued U.S. leadership reflects a gradual transition rather than an abrupt break in the Alliance’s command structure.

I believe that this gradual shift toward a more equitable sharing of command responsibilities represents exactly the kind of structural reform that NATO should have undertaken long ago, regardless of the specific pressures from any given U.S. administration.

A celebration that turns into a show of force

The decision to schedule these exercises to coincide with the 250th anniversary of American independence adds a powerful symbolic dimension to these maneuvers, transforming a historic celebration into a concrete demonstration of Western military solidarity.

This timing—whether coincidental or deliberately planned by military organizers—reinforces the message directed at both the West’s allies and its potential adversaries.

A Message to Russia, China, and Iran

In a geopolitical context marked by the growing ambitions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, this display of naval force off the U.S. coast sends a deterrent signal that extends far beyond the strictly transatlantic framework.

The active participation of multiple allied nations in this exercise, despite political tensions, illustrates a functional unity that remains one of the West’s greatest strategic assets in the face of these rival powers.

I remain convinced that China—even more so than Russia in the long term—is closely watching this type of demonstration to assess the true strength of Western unity; every successful joint exercise, despite political tensions, therefore constitutes a strategic message of the highest order directed at Beijing.

A unity that remains politically fragile

It would be naïve, however, to conclude that this successful operational demonstration erases the very real political tensions that persist between Washington and several allied capitals, particularly regarding issues of financial burden-sharing and solidarity during recent crises such as the one in Iran.

These exercises, encouraging as they may be, do not resolve the fundamental disagreements over the long-term future of the U.S. commitment to Europe—an issue that remains pending the outcome of the Pentagon’s strategic review.

An Uncertain Future for the Frequency of These Exercises

As several experts quoted by Reuters point out, there is no guarantee that this type of joint exercise will continue at the same frequency if reductions in U.S. forces in Europe materialize in the coming months following Hegseth’s review.

This structural uncertainty calls for caution in interpreting these maneuvers, which represent a one-time positive signal rather than a guarantee of long-term operational continuity.

I prefer to temper my initial enthusiasm with this honest caveat: applauding a successful exercise today must not blind us to the very real uncertainties weighing on transatlantic military cooperation in the future.

A New Priority for the Continent’s Defense

These exercises mark a significant shift in the very concept of Western security, in which the defense of North American territory is becoming a shared objective with European allies, rather than a strictly national responsibility of the United States and Canada.

This shift reflects a more mature understanding of contemporary threats, which no longer respect traditional geographical boundaries between distinct theaters of operations.

Canada, a Natural Partner in This Dynamic

Although not explicitly mentioned in the details of this specific exercise, Canada, as an immediate neighbor of the United States and a founding member of NATO, remains directly affected by this strategic shift toward a more integrated continental defense with European allies.

This dynamic could eventually prompt Ottawa to further strengthen its own participation in similar joint exercises, in line with its historic commitment to the Atlantic Alliance.

I believe that Canada, which often takes a back seat in discussions about NATO burden-sharing, would benefit from drawing inspiration from this dynamic to strengthen its own military credibility in the eyes of its North American and European partners.

Institutions That Outlast Individual Egos

In the end, the true protagonist of this story may be neither Trump, nor Hegseth, nor even Rutte, but the institution of NATO itself, which demonstrates a remarkable ability to maintain its operational cohesion despite decades of cyclical political tensions among its members.

This institutional resilience, built on 77 years of shared history, is a strategic asset that neither the harshest criticism nor the most intense political crises seem able to easily dismantle.

A lesson in humility for all alarmist commentators

This demonstration should inspire a certain humility in commentators—myself included, on occasion—who have sometimes been too quick to declare the imminent demise of the Atlantic Alliance with every new inflammatory statement from Washington.

The reality, as is often the case in geopolitics, is more nuanced: NATO is going through a real crisis of political confidence, but its operational foundation remains surprisingly solid, as these sailors off the coast of the Caroline Islands have just demonstrated.

I include myself in this necessary humility: like many observers, I probably underestimated the Alliance’s purely operational resilience in the face of political tensions that I considered potentially more destructive than they ultimately turned out to be.

Burden-sharing Finally Gaining Real Momentum

What this sequence of events—from joint exercises to increases in European defense budgets—truly reveals is the gradual emergence of a more balanced alliance model, in which European countries assume a growing and legitimate share of their own security.

This rebalancing, however politically painful it may be for certain capitals accustomed to American protection, could paradoxically strengthen the Alliance’s long-term sustainability by making it less dependent on the vagaries of American domestic politics.

A transition to watch closely in the coming months

The coming months, marked by the expected conclusion of the Pentagon’s strategic review led by Hegseth, will determine in practical terms whether this transition toward a more equitable burden-sharing results in a weakened Alliance or, on the contrary, in a more resilient Alliance with responsibilities better distributed among its members.

This transition period deserves sustained attention from observers and Western citizens, as its outcome will shape the continent’s security architecture for decades to come.

I choose to conclude on a note of cautious hope: if this transition is managed seriously by all parties involved, it could result in a more mature and sustainable Atlantic Alliance than the one—comfortably dependent—that we have known since the end of the Cold War.

Public Support Remains Generally Stable

Despite highly publicized political tensions among leaders, opinion polls conducted in several European countries continue to show relatively stable public support for NATO membership, even though confidence in specific U.S. leaders has eroded in recent years.

This distinction between support for the institution itself and growing mistrust of certain specific U.S. leaders reflects a political maturity in Western public opinion that is worth highlighting.

European Youth More Supportive of Rearmament Than Before

Notably, several opinion polls suggest that the younger generation in Europe—which has historically been more skeptical of military spending—is now more supportive of rearmament in light of the war in Ukraine and ongoing tensions with Russia.

This generational shift in attitude could make it politically easier to achieve the ambitious defense spending targets set by the Alliance for the coming decade—a factor often overlooked in strictly governmental analyses.

I find it encouraging that the generation that will inherit the long-term consequences of these strategic choices seems increasingly aware of the need to invest seriously in its own collective security, rather than taking indefinite external protection for granted.

A Clear Message Sent from U.S. Waters

These exercises conducted off the coast of North Carolina, despite the tense political climate in Washington, demonstrate that the Atlantic Alliance retains genuine operational capability and a shared commitment to collectively defend the Western world, from the shores of Europe to the U.S. coast itself.

This resilience, documented in black and white by Reuters’ exclusive report, deserves to be recognized as one of the most reassuring developments in this geopolitical period, which is otherwise marked by uncertainty and diplomatic friction.

Vigilance Must Nevertheless Continue

This positive operational news must not, however, obscure the very real structural challenges that persist, notably the uncertain outcome of the Pentagon’s strategic review and the still-intense political tensions between Washington and several allied capitals.

It is precisely this combination of operational resilience and constant political vigilance that will enable the West to navigate this period of transition without compromising its collective security in the face of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean threats, which, for their part, show no sign of abating.

I conclude this profile convinced that history will likely remember not so much the tweets and snubs at the summit as those Spanish, French, and American sailors training together off the coast of the Caroline Islands, for it is they who, ultimately, embody the concrete promise of Article 5.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist