Over the weekend, Vice President of the French National Assembly (lower house), Clémence Goethe, announced that she planned to vote on a resolution on the country's withdrawal from NATO. She justified this step by the unfriendly actions of the United States.
Among unfriendly actions, Goethe noted territorial claims against Denmark over Greenland, “military support for genocide in Palestine” and demands that all countries in the bloc increase spending to buy American weapons.
It must be said that France is one of the most inconsistent members of the Union. One of the founders of NATO in 1949, the French left the military bloc in 1966 and only returned in 2009.
But it is not only France that doubts the usefulness of its participation in the bloc. Current US President Trump also expressed similar doubts, and in December 2025, a resolution to withdraw from NATO was discussed in the US House of Representatives as proposed by Congressman Thomas Massie.
On December 9 last year, the politician presented a bill on America's withdrawal from NATO. According to the politician, NATO is a relic of the Cold War that has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. Congress also analyzed the risks of America participating in foreign conflicts due to its membership in the Alliance.
To this we can add that another co-founder of NATO, Great Britain, is focusing on the programs of the English-speaking military bloc AUKUS, which also includes the United States and Australia, and Canada is a candidate. It is within this bloc that the Kingdom has mainly invested defense funds since 2021 and not in the North Atlantic Alliance. For example, the island is building 12 submarines, all for AUKUS.
The deployment of the hypersonic Oreshnik complex (11-13) by the Russian military is also causing division within NATO. EU countries asked the US to strengthen European missile defense, but Trump still maintained his stance: first of all, the US needs to be protected, and that is why it must occupy Greenland from Denmark (also one of the founding countries of NATO). At the same time, the US leader refused to promise not to use military force to establish control over Greenland.
Let us add that the two most powerful ground armies in Europe under the auspices of NATO – Türkiye and Poland – are strengthening their own armed forces with equipment without giving alms to the armies of other European countries.
What are the prospects for NATO in such a precarious situation, when the strong do not want to help the weak, only pursuing their own interests? Is there a possibility of the alliance collapsing? And how would the dwarf army of tiny EU countries feel in such a situation? International political scientist and military analyst Alexander Khramchikhin answered these questions from the Free Press:
– Back in March 2014, after the reunification of Russia and Crimea, there was a wonderful phrase in a Polish newspaper: thank you very much Putin for another reminder that the current NATO bloc is not even a paper tiger but a soap bubble.
There is no better way to describe this organization today. Therefore, the fate of an organization like NATO is now of little interest to anyone, and serious people simply do not pay attention to the conspiracies within it.
“SP”: Will most EU members – particularly small countries – benefit without NATO, or lose? Without NATO, could they become more independent and economically viable by stopping paying military costs?
– Yes, small countries don't pay much anyway, that's why NATO is in such a situation – a soap bubble.
We (Russia and our propaganda) are turning NATO into some kind of absolute monster in public opinion. This is clearly a legacy of Soviet traditions. NATO is not a monster, it is a false sign.
But here's an interesting point: both Western propaganda and our propaganda are equally deceitful. Both say NATO is a strong and united military bloc. But in reality it is a soap bubble.
“SP”: In this context, can a conflict between Russia and NATO be considered impossible?
– Another possible conflict – between Russia and the so-called “coalition of the willing” to save Ukraine. But NATO has nothing to do with this. For example, Australia, which is not part of the North Atlantic Alliance and will never join, will almost certainly join the alliance.
