The West is discussing a new defence alliance format to replace Nato that would include Ukraine.  Nato's current form is ineffective, so it is worth creating a new defence structure that would include Ukraine, said Keith Kellogg, former US President Donald Trump's special envoy for Ukraine.

According to the retired general, the Alliance's current configuration has exhausted itself, as it has proven ineffective in large-scale crises. Kellogg proposes "redrawing defence lines" and combining US efforts with Japan, Australia, Poland, and Ukraine.

He emphasised that Ukraine has demonstrated its military strength and commitment to common security interests during the current war, and that the country has become a "good ally" for the West.

This view is supported by former Deputy National Security Advisor Victoria Coats. She notes that Nato has proved "insignificant" because it has been unable to resolve the largest military conflict on its own continent since World War II – the war in Ukraine.

Clearly angered by the lack of support from Nato’s European members for the US attack on Iran, Trump has said he is seriously considering withdrawing from the Alliance on two occasions recently.

Transatlantic relations are “deteriorating rapidly” as Trump cools on all international commitments. He has already withdrawn from 66 international institutions, half of which were key UN institutions.

The US-Europe alliance is approaching a “breaking point”, and the Iranian war fallout has shown that the current formation is not fit for US consumption and their wider plans. It has become evident to all who have experienced the past six weeks that several key Nato nations, including Germany, Spain and France, have found attacks by the US and Israel on Iran and Lebanon.

Trump expressed “disgust” at European allies for not participating in the campaign after he called on Nato allies to join his armada to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force.

There is a growing frustration within the White House over burden-sharing and the perceived imbalance in military commitments between Washington and its allies.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio described this as a "betrayal at a crucial moment." He explained that Nato membership allows the US to deploy troops, aircraft, and weapons in regions without US bases, including much of Europe. However, during tough times, countries like Spain, which is a Nato member that the US has pledged to defend, have denied access to their airspace and even boasted about it, refusing to allow US use of their bases. Others have followed suit," he said.

As a result, Rubio questioned whether the US would continue to defend Europe as a member of Nato. "All of this is subject to review," he stated.

When asked about past US plans to withdraw troops from Europe – causing distrust among allies – Rubio responded that "without the US, there is no Nato." He warned that "if we withdrew our troops tomorrow, Nato's existence would be in jeopardy, and they are aware of this. Hopefully, we can correct this," Rubio added, noting that he would address the issue later as the US is currently focused on Iran.

Europe has been pressuring the US to continue weapons deliveries to Ukraine, paid for by Europe as part of the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) programme, but which were appropriated by the US and sent to the conflict in the Middle East.

Trump is questioning the strategic value of Nato itself, asking whether defending Europe serves US interests if European governments do not support American military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere. The remarks suggest a potential re-evaluation of collective defence principles that have underpinned the alliance since its founding in 1949.

According to WSJ, the administration’s position is being described internally as a “break” with US global strategy dating back to the end of the Second World War, when Washington committed to maintaining security guarantees across Europe as a deterrent to adversaries.

European officials have not publicly responded in detail to the latest comments, but previous disagreements over defence spending and strategic priorities have already strained relations within Nato. The alliance has faced repeated pressure from Washington in recent years to increase military expenditure and take on a larger share of collective defence responsibilities.