By Resit Kemal As / Editor-in-Chief, World Of Global
The tension between NATO and Russia is often read through tanks, borders, and missiles. Yet the real issue lies less in maps and more in mindsets. While Russia’s view of NATO is rooted not merely in security concerns but in a historical sense of encirclement, NATO’s greatest test in recent years has come not from external threats, but from internal uncertainty. And the name of that uncertainty is Donald Trump.
From Russia’s perspective, NATO is not a defensive alliance, but a legacy that failed to dissolve after the Cold War—and one that has continued to expand. In Moscow’s eyes, NATO represents the West’s broken promises made tangible. The structure that was once said would not move “one inch eastward” has, over the years, advanced to Russia’s very borders. This has produced not only a strategic alarm in the Kremlin, but a psychological one as well.
For this reason, Russia’s NATO phobia is not fueled by sudden reactions, but by accumulated distrust. The issues of Ukraine, Georgia, or the Baltic states mean far more to Moscow than individual countries. They are thresholds at which Russia’s claim to great-power status is being tested. At these thresholds, NATO is not merely a military actor—it is a reminder of history.
On the other side of the coin, however, stands NATO’s own internal trial. While the alliance has sought to project unity in order to deter Russia, the tone of that message weakened significantly during the Trump years. For Trump, NATO was not an ideological security community, but a costly arrangement.
The question “Who pays how much?” overtook the more fundamental question, “Why are we together?”
This approach was closely watched in Moscow. Because NATO’s greatest strength is not its weapons, but the perception of determination. Trump’s insinuations that the United States might withdraw from NATO were interpreted by Russia not as a military opportunity, but as a political crack. As the alliance’s internal cohesion came into question, the Kremlin gained a clearer view of NATO’s fragile points.
The irony here is striking:
While Russia fears NATO, NATO began to lose confidence in its own leadership.
Whether Trump intended to weaken NATO or not, he touched its most sensitive nerve: predictability. NATO’s deterrence rests not only on military capacity, but on Washington’s unconditional commitment. When that commitment is questioned, Russia’s NATO phobia gives way to cautious boldness.
At this point, both sides are prone to misreading one another. As long as Russia continues to view NATO’s expansion as an existential threat, it hardens its stance; NATO, meanwhile, attempts to balance internal political fluctuations with external threats. The Trump factor disrupted this balance, pushing the alliance onto a more realistic—but also more uneasy—path.
Russia’s apprehension toward NATO and NATO’s test with Trump are two parts of the same picture. One is driven by the traumas of the past; the other by the uncertainties of the future.
And once again, the world is reminded of a familiar truth:
Great alliances are wounded not most by external enemies, but by internal hesitation.