“European leaders’ biggest concern is Trump’s potential return to the White House in 2025... plans for a ‘dormant NATO’ and advocating a shift from burden-sharing to ‘burden-shifting,’” groaned an essay from the European Council on Foreign Relations, as NATO started to gear up for its 75th anniversary with Brussels painted blue, in reflection of the sanctity of the alliance, which President Biden has called sacred.

One would be forgiven to notice the religious instinct behind something that is supposed to be an amoral alignment based purely on interest. “NATO 's shield against aggression ‘will permit us to get on with the real business of government... of achieving a fuller and happier life for all our citizens,’” says Secretary Blinken. Atlanticist think tanks agreed.

Incidentally, at the same time, NATO is planning to move executive decision making out of American political chaos, to Europe. Politico reported that officials hope to move the Ukraine Defense Contact Group “into the alliance’s control, according to three European officials and a U.S. official with knowledge of the internal deliberations.” The hope is “to finalize the move at the NATO leaders’ summit in Washington in July,” Politico wrote, adding that it would be better to institutionalize the process, in case Trump wins again. “With NATO’s supreme allied commander, General Chris Cavoli, in charge, such a step could protect the structure from any political change that may result after the November elections,” reported Bloomberg.

But why should talks of "burden shifting" be a "concern?” Why will NATO have to "institutionalize" decision making regarding humanity's greatest questions of war and peace, and then make it undemocratic? These are not idle questions; the very future of NATO hinges on them.