There has been a clamor among some on the American Right for the United States to pull out of NATO, given Europe’s reflexively adversarial response to Trump’s Greenland saber-rattling. Whether we should remain in an alliance formed in a very different world back in 1949 is a question President Trump first raised during his initial term. The question actually has more merit than one might think at first blush. One must ask what exactly NATO’s raison d’être was to begin with. It is difficult, eighty years on, to recall just how much of a mess Europe was at the time. Much of the continent had been razed by the most lethal of its many internecine conflicts. Europe was no longer at war, but it was not exactly at peace either. Stalin — a dictator with as much, if not more, innocent blood on his hands than Hitler — had advanced his Red Army all the way through Poland, then-Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and half of Germany. That Soviet presence was massive: nearly ten million infantry backed by tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft. By 1945, the Red Army had become a military colossus that had just annihilated the most professional army in the world. Given this looming threat just over the horizon, by 1949 Western Europe needed to band together to offer a deterrent to Stalin’s hegemony. And given the circumstances, the only military body capable of giving this new North Atlantic Treaty Organization its muscle was, of course, the U.S. Armed Forces. While Western Europe was rebuilt under the auspices of the Marshall Plan, American troops, armor, and aircraft kept the Soviets at bay. This mission was performed successfully all the way to 1991, when the Soviet Union — the very threat NATO was created to contain — abruptly collapsed. That was 35 years ago. And yet NATO did not ride off into the sunset with its mission accomplished. Instead, it continued to expand, adding 16 new nations — each creeping closer and closer to an increasingly alarmed Russia (a country that suffered roughly 25 million dead repelling the last Western invaders from its soil). But why the steady eastward expansion? Some NATO supporters argue that Putin’s resurgence and his aggression in Ukraine are answer enough. But Ukraine and Russia share a convoluted history. Ukraine has long been contested land, where its story and Russia’s overlap in a region that has seen over seven hundred conflicts since the fall of Rome. This is not the first time war has raged from Crimea to the Donbas. Nor will it be the last. There is no reason for a non-Ukrainian to die fighting for that territory. In fact, the only credible reason to continue our involvement in NATO is if Putin’s Russia poses the same danger as Stalin’s USSR once did. But today’s Russian military is not the Red Army of 1945 in which anywhere from 30 to 35% of its personnel were non-Russians (including 20% Ukrainians). And today Russia is demographically dying. Between 1990 and now—owing to the breakup of the Soviet Union, low birth rates, emigration, and early mortality often linked to alcoholism—Russia’s population has shrunk by roughly three to five million; that is a around a 2 to 4% decline. Over that same period, the U.S. population grew by more than 95 million, or roughly 38%. Even without the United States, the EU today has roughly four times Russia’s population. History shows that in modern war, population is often the best predictor of who prevails in a protracted struggle. Russia’s economy is both small and oil-dependent. It has been called the world’s largest gas station for a reason. Anywhere from 20 to 30% of its economy depends on crude oil sales, depending on the year and market conditions — making it extremely vulnerable to sanctions or blockades. As it stands, Russia’s entire economy is smaller than that of three American states. Speaking of economies, since NATO’s establishment, the GDP of EU nations has grown from barely $2.5 trillion to as high as $23 trillion today, an increase of more than 800%. This prompts the obvious question: if these nations have grown so rich, why do they still need us as if they were clearing rubble out of Cologne? In other words, whether one agrees with leaving NATO or not, Trump’s re-evaluation of an alliance nearing the end of its eighth decade is not grounded in anti-EU whimsy, but in a classic cost-benefit analysis of its service to American interests. Polls show that while only about 15% of Americans favor leaving NATO, as many as 30% of European residents believe the United States should reduce or end its role in Europe’s defense. This is ironic. If the same Europeans who love to hold up their model social-welfare systems — especially their “free” health care — understood how much of those systems are underwritten by the American taxpayer, they might take a less belligerent view toward one of their primary health care providers. Andreas Rentz/Getty Images What do I mean by this? Take a look at the wealthiest EU nation — and the one with the most violent history with Russia — Germany. Germany currently spends roughly 2% of its €5 trillion GDP on defense, or about €100 billion annually. At the same time, it spends roughly ten to 12% of GDP on health care — around €500 billion per year. Estimates suggest that if American soldiers and airmen withdrew and Germany were left to fend for itself, Berlin would need to raise defense spending to as much as 4% of GDP. That means an additional €90–100 billion every year. That money has to come from somewhere. And since health care is the largest pool of discretionary spending (unless Berlin plans on raiding pensions), that is where it would most likely be found. A full American withdrawal would require cutting Germany’s health care system by at least 20%. The consequences would be catastrophic. Growth spending would slow, wait times would balloon into rationing, co-pays and supplemental costs would rise, hospital consolidations would reduce access to emergency and specialized care, benefits would shrink, staffing shortages would worsen, and zero-cost access would disappear. Setting aside health outcomes, the social upheaval in a country accustomed to expansive care at minimal personal cost would be acute — and politically devastating for any party responsible. And Germany is only one nation. If the entire EU had to raise defense spending to 4% to fill the void left by an American departure, it would require roughly €340 billion more per year — again, about 20% of total EU health care spending. Even partial offsets would place ten to 20% pressure on health budgets — unless already sky-high taxes rose further. Suddenly, the EU’s vaunted “free” health care system would be anything but. Put more bluntly, NATO is not merely a security alliance — it is a massive American taxpayer-funded subsidy for Europe’s welfare state. That is the dirty little secret no one in Brussels wants to discuss. Every time a German walks into a “free” clinic or a Frenchman is wheeled into an operating room, roughly one euro in five is effectively paid by you and me. NATO — at least for its original Western democracies — needs the United States not to defend borders it could fund itself, but to prop up welfare systems already straining under their own weight. There is a famous story in business lore about accounting wunderkind Harry Sonneborn, who told McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc that the real value of his restaurants was not the thin margins on hamburgers, but the land beneath them. “You’re not in the hamburger business,” he said. “You’re in the real estate business.” In the same way, American contributions to NATO are not primarily about Europe’s defense. They allow European capital to be freed from defense spending — a burden borne by American taxpayers — and redirected toward social welfare. So when your taxes go to NATO, an alliance originally created to defend Europeans from other Europeans, you are not in the continental defense business. You are in the health care business. Just not for yourself. You are providing it for wealthy Germans, French, Brits, and Scandinavians who understand exactly how fragile their welfare systems are — and how quickly they would collapse if America walked away. After all, it is easy to pay for both guns and butter when someone else largely pays for the guns. It is quite another thing to foot the bill for both. More the suckers us. * * * Brad Schaeffer is a commodities fund manager, author, and columnist whose articles have appeared on the pages of The Wall Street Journal, NY Post, NY Daily News, The Daily Wire, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, Zerohedge, and other outlets. He is the author of three books. You can also follow him on Substack and X. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.