The strategy behind Trump’s looming NATO withdrawal? A new global order

Recent speculation suggests Donald Trump may withdraw from NATO, while few have explored the reasons he might pursue that path.

Yes, abandoning America’s longtime security framework in Europe aligns with promises to cut spending and avoid foreign entanglements — but the motivations run deeper than that.

If the US is moving toward a more transactional foreign policy, then keeping Turkey happy makes sense, especially if it means limiting Russian-Chinese influence in Central Asia.

It’s about restructuring the global order.

The U.S. is pivoting toward a more transparently transactional alliance system, one centered on regional powers that can do the heavy lifting while Washington plays arbiter.

The new security and economic bloc forming before our eyes looks like it will involve Russia, Turkey, and Israel.

These are not natural allies in the traditional sense, but they each serve a role in what is shaping up to be a strategic trade-off:

• Russia gets its Ukraine deal;
• Turkey gets dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia; and
• Israel secures its energy routes.

Greece, Armenia, and even Ukraine, meanwhile, are looking more and more like sacrificial pawns in this reshuffling.

Trump has never cared for NATO’s obsession with Ukraine, and he’s likely to cut a deal that brings the war with Russia to an end.

The most probable outcome would be a mineral rights agreement where Russia officially consolidates its control over Eastern Ukraine while the United States walks away with access to key resources and a stabilized energy market.

The war-fatigued West will be sold this as a win (“Trump ended the war!”) but in reality, it will be the moment Washington moves past its commitments to Eastern Europe and onto bigger plans.

This wouldn’t just be a settlement on Ukraine. It would also serve as the foundation for a broader U.S.-Russia understanding. Russia’s ultimate goal is to weaken NATO’s grip over its near abroad. If Washington gives signals that it won’t interfere in Armenia, Georgia, or even parts of Eastern Europe, Moscow will have no reason to keep its old hostility toward America.

Recalibrating alliances

Then, we have Turkey. Recent rumors that Trump would shut down a U.S. military base in Greece have yet to come to pass. Still, they reflect the region’s anxiety concerning Trump’s affinity for Turkish President Recep Erdoğan.

Erdoğan has always wanted a freer hand in the Aegean, where Greece controls a massive exclusive economic zone and the most important shipping lanes in the region. If Washington tacitly allows Turkey to pressure Greece, it clears the way for a major shift in power.

At the same time, Israel is tied up in the energy game with Greece through a pipeline linking the two. If Turkey’s aggressive posturing disrupts that project, Israel may find itself needing to recalibrate its alliances.

That’s where we come in. America can broker an arrangement where Israel and Turkey, which have been exchanging fighting words over Palestine for the last year and a half, find common ground, possibly at Greece’s expense.

This isn’t far-fetched. Turkey has been a problem for NATO for years, and yet Washington keeps it close because of its strategic importance.

If the U.S. is moving toward a more transactional foreign policy, then keeping Turkey happy makes sense, especially if it means limiting Russian-Chinese influence in Central Asia.

A geopolitical earthquake

Meanwhile, the West is playing Armenia much like it played Ukraine: dangling EU integration, offering economic deals, and encouraging a break from Russia.

But just like Ukraine, Armenia is expendable. If war breaks out again with Azerbaijan, Armenia will be on its own, isolated from Russia and surrounded by hostile powers.

Here’s the likely scenario: The war starts, and Armenia holds out for a while, but without serious backing, it eventually loses key territory, most importantly the southern region of Syunik.

Then, as with Ukraine, America steps in as the “peacemaker” and negotiates a deal.

The price? Armenia gives up Syunik, allowing Turkey and Azerbaijan to finally complete the Zangezur corridor, uniting the Turkic world from Anatolia to Central Asia.

This would be a geopolitical earthquake. Turkey and Azerbaijan would gain unprecedented control over trade and energy flows, and a new power bloc would emerge stretching across the Caspian.

At first glance, a U.S.-backed Pan-Turanic expansion sounds counterintuitive, but it actually aligns with Washington’s shift toward an interest-based alliance system. A consolidated Turkic bloc led by Turkey, stretching from Anatolia through Azerbaijan and into Central Asia, would serve as a counterbalance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It would give the U.S. leverage over key trade routes while keeping both Russia and China in check.

At the same time, this would spell the end for Armenia as we know it. A landlocked state already struggling to maintain relevance would be completely isolated, boxed in by adversaries, and left with little recourse but to accept a diminished future. The EU’s empty promises won’t save Armenia. If anything, they will only push it further into the abyss.

Who wins, who loses?

Winners:

• The U.S. moves beyond NATO into a more flexible alliance structure.
• Russia secures its Ukrainian gains and reduces Western influence near its borders.
• Turkey achieves its long-term goal of regional dominance and direct access to Central Asia.
• Azerbaijan cements its position as the dominant power in the South Caucasus.
• Israel secures its energy interests in a new regional balance.

Losers:

• Ukraine is left with a frozen conflict and a fractured future.
• Greece faces renewed pressure from Turkey over shipping lanes and energy control.
• Armenia loses Syunik and is pushed into permanent isolation.

The bottom line

If Trump follows through on withdrawing from NATO, it won’t be the end of U.S. influence. It will simply be the beginning of a new grand strategy.

The post-1945 world order was built on ideological alliances and the “rules-based order.” The next era will be about raw, transparently strategic interests. America doesn’t need NATO if it can secure influence through regional power deals.

Armenia, Greece, and Ukraine are all at risk of being left behind in this transformation. The West no longer fights for weak states unless it directly benefits from doing so. The game is changing, and the players who don’t recognize the shift will be the ones who suffer the most.