‘207 weeks to go’—Norwegian foreign minister remarks on U.S. unpredictability

In a moment that drew audible laughter from the audience at the Arctic Frontiers Conference, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide made a subtle, but pointed remark about NATO’s uncertain future under U.S. President Donald Trump.

“Yes, we have 207 weeks to go—one down,” he said, a clear reference to the remaining time in Trump’s presidential term.

The comment encapsulated a growing anxiety among NATO allies; uncertainty over how Washington’s shifting priorities will impact the alliance and how the transatlantic partnership that has underpinned Western security since World War II will emerge from an uncertain and changing reality.

America’s shifting role 

For decades, NATO has functioned on the assumption of U.S. leadership and reliability. The military alliance was, as Eide put it, “largely designed by the United States, with strong American involvement.” He argued that Washington has historically benefited from a world order that aligned with its values, one where NATO’s commitment to collective security ensured stability for Western allies.

“What America has much more of than Russia is friends,” he said. “And that’s actually a good thing for you. And a good way to maintain friends is to treat them reasonably well.”

The remark was both a warning and a critique—a diplomatic way of suggesting that Washington risks alienating the allies who have long ensured its strategic dominance.SS

But Trump’s return to office has reawakened fears that NATO’s stability is no longer guaranteed. With questions over his commitment to the collective defense clause, his belligerence towards Denmark and his past criticisms of European allies, there is increasing concern that NATO’s unity is at risk at a time when global tensions are rising.

Tension within the alliance

The discussion made clear that NATO’s internal cohesion is under pressure, particularly as European allies prepare for a world where U.S. support can no longer be taken for granted.

The most glaring sign of this shift came from French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion to Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that Europe should increase its own security presence in Greenland, by stationing French troops in the Arctic country.

Eide attempted to downplay concerns that NATO members were turning on each other, insisting that Macron’s proposal was about strengthening European security, not a direct challenge to Washington.

“I do not think that we should interpret President Macron’s suggestion as being there to defend against America,” Eide said. “I think it is rather—to have a higher military presence to deal with the problems which have led Trump to say that he wants to be in Greenland.”

Still, the fact that such discussions are even happening underscores a fundamental shift: Europe is openly strategizing for a future where it cannot depend on Washington.

Viktorija Rusinaité, director of research and analysis at the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, said that while NATO remains intact, there is no denying that the alliance is facing growing political friction.

“We are entering a period where European states will have to manage not just external threats, but also internal disagreements on how NATO should function in a changing world,” she said.

NATO’s identity crisis 

Beyond the immediate political frictions, the broader question facing NATO is what its role will be in a world where Western dominance is no longer guaranteed.

Eide pointed out that the balance of power is shifting, noting that NATO and its core members—Europe, Canada and the U.S.—represent just a fraction of the global population.

“The Western world—Europe and the U.S.—still represents about a billion people, but the rest of the world has grown to more than 8 billion. New power structures are emerging, and we need to define our role within them.”

Captain Niels Markussen, director of NATO’s Maritime Centre for Security of Critical Underwater Infrastructure, agreed that NATO is being forced to adapt to a new security landscape.

“The toolbox of security has become wider,” he said. “We need to go beyond traditional security and understand that threats today are much more complex than just military confrontation.”

Markussen’s warning was echoed by Viktorija Rusinaité, who argued that NATO’s ability to project influence will depend on how well it can balance military deterrence with economic and technological resilience.

“It is no longer just about how many tanks or ships you have,” she said. “It is also about how you structure your economies, your supply chains and your technological independence.”

Hybrid threats

Another challenge NATO faces is that it was designed for conventional warfare, not hybrid threats. While the alliance remains strong militarily, Eide acknowledged that it is struggling to adapt to modern threats like cyberattacks, economic coercion, and undersea sabotage.

“Every war and conflict from now on will be a hybrid conflict,” he warned. “And the early signs that we are moving from peace to war will appear first in the hybrid domain.”

Markussen highlighted how NATO is already facing covert operations below the threshold of war, particularly from Russia and China.

“We know that both Chinese and Russian naval activity is increasing around Greenland,” he said. “But identifying their intent and proving anything conclusively is much harder.”

This ambiguity is precisely what makes NATO’s traditional security doctrine difficult to apply in modern conflicts.

Uncertainty ahead

Despite the warnings, Eide maintained that NATO’s core military cohesion remains strong. He dismissed suggestions that tensions over Greenland, military spending, or European security ambitions would lead to deeper fractures.

“Seventy-five years of togetherness in NATO has built a very strong military culture. Everybody on a certain level knows each other because they’ve been to exercises and seminars. That is a very solid buffer.”

But the real question may be whether political tensions at the leadership level will ultimately erode that foundation. With Washington increasingly unpredictable, European leaders are being forced to prepare for a reality they never thought they’d have to face: a NATO where Washington is no longer the reliable anchor of Western security.

As Eide’s remark about 207 weeks left in Trump’s term made clear, the clock is ticking.

------------------

This story is published in the Barents Observer as part of a partnership with Arctic Today, the circumpolar news online.