2026年5月3日 美国东部时间10:00 / 福克斯新闻网
退役中将基思·凯洛格告知特朗普，北约需“与欧洲建立新的防御同盟”，因各国预算未兑现承诺
作者：埃弗拉特·拉赫特 福克斯新闻网
本文为系列报道的第一篇，聚焦北约联盟面临的各项挑战。
随着唐纳德·特朗普总统加大对北约盟国增加国防开支的施压力度，并下令在未来6至12个月内从德国撤离5000名美军士兵，一个更深层次的问题逐渐浮出水面：尽管盟国的预算有所增加，但北约仍严重依赖美国军事力量才能正常运转。
北约的失衡并非理论层面的假设，也并非新近出现的问题，退役中将基思·凯洛格告诉福克斯新闻数字频道：“我曾告诉总统……或许你应该谈谈与北约建立分级关系。”凯洛格回忆了他在特朗普第一任期内就北约未来与特朗普的对话。“……我们需要建立一种新的，恕我找不到更好的措辞，一种新的北约，一种与欧洲的新防御同盟。”
凯洛格曾在特朗普第一任期内担任高级国家安全官员，他表示，该联盟在政治上有所扩张，但在军事上并未同步——这导致他眼中的承诺与实际能力之间的差距不断扩大。
北约秘书长暗示盟国可能在霍尔木兹海峡采取行动，警告对美国存在“不健康的依赖”
2025年6月25日，北约首脑峰会在荷兰海牙举行期间，北约秘书长马克·吕特、唐纳德·特朗普总统与英国首相基尔·斯塔默合影。（本·斯坦索尔/ pooled/路透社）
“北约最初只有12个成员国，如今已增至32个，在此过程中，我认为其影响力被稀释了。”他批评道，称如今的北约是一个“极度臃肿的架构”。
“他们并未在国防上投入资金。他们的国防工业和武装力量已经萎缩。看看现在的英国，他们几乎无法部署部队：他们有两艘航空母舰，目前都在维修中。他们的旅级部队中，每六个里只有一个能正常运作。看看其作战能力，根本就不存在。因此我认为我们必须认清这一现实，并意识到我们需要做出改变。”凯洛格告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，他目前是美国优先外交政策研究所美国安全中心的联合主席。
但并非所有人都认为该联盟正逐渐失去其重要性。
“北约的重要性从未像现在这样突出。”美国陆军战争学院研究教授约翰·R·德尼说道，他认为北约仍是美国国家安全的核心所在。
“原因有二，”他表示，“其一，这是我们相对于中俄的比较优势……他们根本没有类似的联盟。”
“其二……北约为我们最重要的贸易与投资伙伴关系的安全与稳定提供了保障，”他补充道，这里指的是北美与欧洲之间的经济联系。
俄罗斯战机侵犯领空后北约盟国爆发争执，考验联盟决心
2025年8月20日，北约各国国防参谋长在布鲁塞尔举行会议，屏幕上显示盟国领导人远程出席会议讨论乌克兰问题。（福克斯新闻）
依赖：是刻意设计还是先天弱点？
根据伦敦智库亨利·杰克逊学会的巴拉克·塞纳提供的分析数据，到2010年左右，美国约占北约国防开支的65%至70%。
“欧洲盟国一直以来都依赖美国。”凯洛格在谈及欧洲盟国时说道。
“从设计初衷来看，盟国总体上是依靠彼此来实现威慑与防御的，”德尼解释道，联盟的存在就是为了“汇集各自的资源”并“整合个体的优势”。
德尼指出，地面部队就是美国从该联盟中获益的一个明显例子，他提到“部署在当地的盟国机械化步兵部队数量远超美军”。
尽管如此，他也承认这种依赖有时会走向极端。
“过去……可以公平地说，欧洲盟国在常规防御方面过度依赖美国，”他提及2000年代的情况。
他表示，这在一定程度上是由美国的优先事项驱动的——当时华盛顿敦促欧洲盟国将重点放在阿富汗和伊拉克的战争上，而非领土防御。
2015年6月18日，在波兰扎甘举行的北约“高贵跳跃”快速反应部队演习期间，一名波兰陆军士兵坐在坦克上，身后飘扬着北约旗帜。（肖恩·加拉格尔/盖蒂图片社）
塞纳将北约描述为“形式上集体行动，但功能上不对称”，美国提供了不成比例的“高端能力”份额。
这种不对称在核威慑领域最为明显。
塞纳表示，美国提供了北约绝大多数的核武库——包括洲际弹道导弹、潜射系统和战略轰炸机——这意味着威慑最终依赖于美国会实施报复的假设。
一名北约官员告诉福克斯新闻数字频道：“美国的核威慑力量无可替代，但显然欧洲需要加大投入。这一点毫无疑问。我们的国防与安全需要实现更平衡的局面。这既是因为我们看到美国在全球发挥着至关重要的作用，也需要投入相应资源，同时也是因为这才公平。”
“好消息是，”该官员补充道，“盟国正在朝这个方向努力。它们正在加强合作，与美国一道，确保我们共同拥有所需的一切，以威慑和保卫欧洲-大西洋地区生活的10亿民众。”
特朗普关注格陵兰岛主权问题之际，北约启动北极安全行动
2025年3月12日，在德国霍恩费尔斯附近的“联合精神25”军事演习中，美国陆军第12战斗航空旅的波音CH-47支奴干直升机飞越立陶宛“维尔卡斯”步兵战车。
北约无法替代的作战系统
除核武器外，这种依赖贯穿于联盟的作战核心体系。
塞纳指出，美国提供的情报、监视与侦察系统，以及后勤和指挥系统，对北约的行动至关重要。
“没有美国的情报和监视能力，北约将失去态势感知和早期预警能力，”塞纳说，并补充道，“这意味着，例如俄罗斯可以攻击欧洲。从理论上讲，如果没有北约且美国不介入，欧洲将无法及时察觉威胁，或者需要过长时间才能组织防御。”
凯洛格也表示，欧洲大部分地区的军事能力都未能达到顶级水平。
“总体而言，如果按A到F的等级来评分，他们的装备大概只能拿到B或C，”他说，“算不上一流水平。”
他指出，防空和导弹防御是关键的短板，他提到尽管欧洲国家依赖美国制造的“爱国者”和“萨德”等系统，但“他们没有可与之媲美的系统”。
凯洛格将此归因于多年来的投入不足，他表示欧洲国防工业“已经萎缩”，并补充称美国如今也在“重新学习这一课”。
特朗普重申美国“将永远与北约同在”，同时对联盟表示质疑
2019年12月4日，在英国沃特福德举行的北约领导人峰会期间，唐纳德·特朗普总统与波兰总统安杰伊·杜达共进工作午餐时交谈。（凯文·拉马尔克/路透社）
德尼表示，如今的情况更为复杂。
“联盟的国防开支一直在增长……2022年之后更是大幅飙升，”他说，并指出2014年俄罗斯吞并克里米亚是一个转折点。
但他警告称，作战能力的提升需要时间，他指出许多改进措施距离全面部署仍需数年时间。
德尼指出，欧洲近期采购美国装备就是作战能力不断提升的证据，他提到波兰、罗马尼亚、挪威和丹麦等国正在从美国采购F-35战斗机。
“F-35战机不是一朝一夕就能造出来的，”他说，并补充道，这些改进中的许多都需要数年时间才能完全实现。
一名北约官员告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，该联盟“需要进一步加快步伐”以应对日益严峻的威胁，并提及2025年6月各国国防部长商定的新能力目标。
该官员表示，优先事项包括防空和导弹防御、远程武器、后勤以及大型地面部队，他指出尽管细节仍属机密，但计划要求防空和导弹防御能力提升五倍，装甲车辆和坦克数量“增加数千辆”，炮弹数量“增加数百万枚”。北约还旨在将后勤、运输和医疗支援等关键支援能力提升一倍。
该官员补充称，盟国正在增加对军舰、飞机、无人机、远程导弹以及太空和网络能力的投资，同时提高战备水平并升级指挥与控制系统。
“这些目标现已纳入各国计划，”该官员说，并补充道，盟国必须展示如何通过持续的国防开支和能力发展来实现这些目标。
这位北约官员还指出，欧洲盟国领导着中欧和东欧各地的多国部队，而美国和加拿大则作为框架国家在波兰和拉脱维亚开展行动，同时还在执行空中警戒任务以及北约在科索沃的科索沃部队行动。
2011年4月2日，瑞典空军的JAS 39“鹰狮”战斗机从瑞典南部起飞。（美联社照片/Scanpix/帕特里克·索德斯特伦，档案照片）
如果美国力量被分散，会发生什么？
凯洛格的警告直截了当：北约的威慑能力依赖于美国的存在。
“你永远都要担心的是……俄罗斯，”凯洛格在2025年曾担任特朗普的乌克兰和俄罗斯问题特使，他说道。
如果美军被牵制在其他地区，北约将面临严重的压力——尤其是在情报和后勤领域。
对凯洛格而言，危险在于延误。“不到事情发生的那一刻，我们不会知道，”他说，“而到那时，你将无法做出应对。”
但德尼表示，该联盟仍是一项战略资产，而非负担。
【点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP】
2025年6月22日北约峰会召开前两天，北约军事部队在海牙世界论坛外站岗警戒。（雷姆科·德瓦尔/ANP/法新社）
他认为，问题不在于北约是否仍能发挥作用。而在于盟国能否足够快地调整适应，以维持其运转。
埃弗拉特·拉赫特是福克斯新闻数字频道的外国记者，负责报道国际事务和联合国事务。在X平台关注她：@efratlachter。新闻线索可发送至efrat.lachter@fox.com。
Examining NATO: Inside the ‘commitment gap’ as US carries alliance deterrence
May 3, 2026 10:00am EDT / Fox News
Retired Lt Gen Keith Kellogg told Trump the alliance needs ‘a new defensive alignment with Europe’ as budgets fail to match promises
By Efrat Lachter Fox News
This is part one of a series examining the challenges confronting the NATO alliance.
As President Donald Trump ramps up pressure on NATO allies to increase defense spending — and orders the withdrawal of 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany over the next six to 12 months — a deeper issue is coming into focus: even as allied budgets rise, NATO still depends heavily on American military power to function.
NATO’s imbalance is not theoretical — and it is not new, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg told Fox News Digital, “I told the president… maybe you ought to talk about a tiered relationship with NATO,” Kellogg described conversations with Trump in his first term about the alliance’s future. “…we need to develop a new, for lack of a better term, a new NATO a new defensive alignment with Europe.”
Kellogg, who served as a senior national security official during Trump’s first term, said the alliance has expanded politically but not militarily — creating what he sees as a growing gap between commitments and real capability.
NATO CHIEF SIGNALS ALLIES MAY ACT ON HORMUZ, WARNS OF ‘UNHEALTHY CODEPENDENCE’ ON US
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer pose during the NATO Heads of State and Government summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025.(Ben Stansall/Pool/Reuters)
“You started with 12, and you went to 32, and in the process, I think you diluted the impact,” he argued, calling today’s NATO “a very bloated architecture.”
“They haven’t put the money into defense. Their defense industry and defense forces have atrophied. When you look at the Brits right now, they could barely deploy forces: they have two aircraft carriers, both under maintenance. Their brigades are like one out of six that work. And you just look at the capability, it’s just not there. So I think we need to realize that and say, well, we need something different,” Kellogg, who is the co-chair of the Center for American Security at the America First Foreign Policy Institute, told Fox News Digital.
But not everyone agrees the alliance is losing relevance.
“It has never been more relevant,” said John R. Deni, a research professor at the U.S. Army War College, who says NATO remains central to U.S. national security.
“The reason for that is twofold,” he said. “One, it’s our comparative advantage versus the Chinese and the Russians… they don’t have anything like this.”
“And the second reason… NATO underwrites the security and stability of our most important trade and investment relationship,” he added, referring to economic ties between North America and Europe.
NATO ALLIES CLASH AFTER RUSSIAN JETS BREACH AIRSPACE, TESTING ALLIANCE RESOLVE
NATO chiefs of defense hold a meeting in Brussels on Aug. 20, 2025, with screens displaying allied leaders joining remotely to discuss Ukraine.(Fox News)
Dependence: Design or Weakness?
By around 2010, the United States accounted for roughly 65% to 70% of NATO defense spending, according to analysis provided by Barak Seener from the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank.
“They’ve always been dependent on the U.S.,” Kellogg said of the European allies.
“The allies overall rely upon one another for deterrence and defense by design,” Deni said, explaining that alliances exist to “pool their resources” and “aggregate their individual strengths.”
Deni pointed to ground forces as a clear example of what the U.S. gains from the alliance, noting that “there are far more allied mechanized infantry forces on the ground than there are Americans.”
Still, he acknowledged that reliance has at times gone too far.
“In the past… it was fair to say that the European allies were overly reliant upon the Americans for conventional defense,” he said, pointing to the 2000s.
That, he said, was partly driven by U.S. priorities — as Washington pushed European allies to focus on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than territorial defense.
A Polish Army soldier sits in a tank as a NATO flag flies behind during the NATO Noble Jump VJTF exercises on June 18, 2015, in Zagan, Poland.(Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Seener describes NATO as “formally collective, but functionally asymmetric,” with the U.S. providing a disproportionate share of “high-end capabilities.”
That asymmetry is most visible in nuclear deterrence.
Seener said the U.S. provides the overwhelming majority of NATO’s nuclear arsenal — including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched systems and strategic bombers — meaning deterrence ultimately relies on the assumption of U.S. retaliation.
A NATO official told Fox News Digital that, “The U.S. nuclear deterrent cannot be replaced, but it is clear that Europe needs to step up. There’s no question. There needs to be a better balance when it comes to our defense and security. Both because we see the vital role the U.S. plays around the world and the resources that it demands, and also because it is only fair.”
“The good news,” the official added, “is that the Allies are doing exactly that. They are stepping up, working together — and with the U.S. — to ensure we collectively have what we need to deter and defend one billion people living across the Euro-Atlantic area.”
NATO LAUNCHES ARCTIC SECURITY PUSH AS TRUMP EYES GREENLAND TAKEOVER
Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopters of the U.S. Army 12th Combat Aviation Brigade fly over a Lithuanian Vilkas infantry fighting vehicle during the Allied Spirit 25 military exercise near Hohenfels, Germany, on March 12, 2025.
The Systems NATO Cannot Replace
Beyond nuclear weapons, the dependence runs through the alliance’s operational backbone.
Seener pointed to U.S.-provided intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — as well as logistics and command systems — as essential to NATO operations.
“Without U.S. intelligence and surveillance, NATO loses situational awareness and early warning capabilities,” Seener said, adding, “So that means that Russia, for example, can attack Europe. And theoretically, if there’s no NATO and the U.S. is not involved, Europe would not be aware, or it would take it too long to be able to defend itself.”
Kellogg also says that much of Europe’s military capability falls short of top-tier systems.
“For the most part, their equipment, if you had to grade it A, B, C, D, E, F, they’re kind of like B players or C players,” he said. “It’s not the first line of work.”
He pointed to air and missile defense as a key gap, noting that while European countries rely on U.S.-made systems such as Patriot and THAAD, “they don’t have a system that’s comparable.”
Kellogg attributed that to years of underinvestment, saying European defense industries “have atrophied,” adding that the United States is also now “relearning that as well.”
TRUMP AFFIRMS US ‘WILL ALWAYS BE THERE FOR NATO,’ WHILE EXPRESSING DOUBTS ABOUT ALLIANCE
President Donald Trump and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda talk during a working lunch at the NATO leaders summit in Watford, Britain, on Dec. 4, 2019.(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Deni said the picture today is more mixed.
“Alliance defense spending has been up… and has spiked far more after 2022,” he said, pointing to Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014 as a turning point.
But he cautioned that capability gains take time, noting that many improvements are still years away from full deployment.
Deni pointed to recent European purchases of U.S. systems as evidence of growing capability, noting that countries including Poland, Romania, Norway and Denmark are acquiring the F-35 fighter jet from the U.S.
“You can’t build an F-35 overnight,” he said, adding that many of these improvements will take years to fully materialize.
A NATO official told Fox News Digital the alliance “needs to move further and faster” to meet growing threats, pointing to new capability targets agreed by defense ministers in June 2025.
Keith Kellogg speaks during the Warsaw Security Forum on Sept. 30, 2025, in Poland.(Marek Antoni Iwanczuk/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The official said priorities include air and missile defense, long-range weapons, logistics and large land forces, noting that while details remain classified, plans call for a fivefold increase in air and missile defense, “thousands more” armored vehicles and tanks, and “millions more” artillery shells. NATO also aims to double key enabling capabilities such as logistics, transportation and medical support.
The official added that allies are increasing investments in warships, aircraft, drones, long-range missiles, as well as space and cyber capabilities, while boosting readiness and modernizing command and control.
“These targets are now included in national plans,” the official said, adding that allies must demonstrate how they will meet them through sustained defense spending and capability development.
The NATO official also noted that European allies lead multinational forces across Central and Eastern Europe, while the U.S. and Canada serve as framework nations in Poland and Latvia, alongside ongoing air policing missions and NATO’s KFOR operation in Kosovo.
A Swedish Air Force JAS 39 Gripen fighter aircraft takes off from southern Sweden on April 2, 2011.(AP Photo/Scanpix/Patric Soderstrom, File)
What happens if the U.S. is stretched?
Kellogg’s warning is direct: NATO’s deterrence depends on U.S. presence.
“The one you always have to worry about… is Russia,” Kellogg, who was Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia in 2025, said.
If U.S. forces are tied down elsewhere, NATO could face serious strain — particularly in areas like intelligence and logistics.
For Kellogg, the danger is delay. “We won’t know until it happens,” he said. “And then you won’t be able to respond to it.”
Deni, however, said the alliance remains a strategic asset — not a liability.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A NATO military force stands guard outside the World Forum in The Hague ahead of the two-day NATO summit on June 22, 2025.(Remko de Waal/ANP/AFP)
The question, he suggests, is not whether NATO still works. It is whether allies can adapt fast enough to keep it working.
Efrat Lachter is a foreign correspondent for Fox News Digital covering international affairs and the United Nations. Follow her on X @efratlachter. Stories can be sent to efrat.lachter@fox.com.