Mike Baker

Well, okay, some European bases.

Aircraft are refueling, rearming, and staging through Allied territory.

Intelligence, logistics, and infrastructure across NATO countries remain important to the U.S.

ability to project force into the region.

So while European leaders publicly distance themselves from the conflict, most are providing some level of support.

That's the paradox.

Politically, the alliance looks fractured.

Operationally, well, it's still functioning.

But NATO has always relied on more than just military capability.

Its strength comes from the assumption that when it matters, allies will act together.

If that belief starts to erode, the consequences go far beyond this particular conflict.

Adversaries notice, Russia notices, Iran notices, and perhaps most importantly, U.S.

planners notice, because America's ability to operate globally depends heavily on that network of alliances, particularly in Europe.

The bases, the access, the logistics, those are not easy to replace.

Now, legally speaking, withdrawing from NATO isn't simple.

A law passed just a few years ago requires congressional approval to leave the alliance.

But you don't necessarily have to formally exit NATO to weaken it.

You can do that by undermining trust, by conditioning support, by turning the alliance into a transactional relationship.

And that appears to be where things are heading.

Which brings us back to the war itself, because at this point, the real question isn't just how this fight ends, it's who's responsible for what comes next.