Immediately after the inauguration of former President Donald J. Trump, his staff explained how NATO’s mutual defense obligations worked.
“You mean if Russia attacked Lithuania we would go to war with Russia?” he replied. “This is crazy.”
Mr. Trump has never believed in the fundamental “one-for-all and all-for-one” concept of the Atlantic alliance. Indeed, he spent much of his four-year presidency undermining it while strong-arming members kept their pledges to spend more on their own militaries under the threat that he would not come to their aid otherwise.
But he took it to a whole new level over the weekend, declaring at a rally in South Carolina that not only would he not defend European countries he saw as delayed by a Russian attack, he would go so far as to “encourage Russia.” to do whatever the hell they want” against them. Never before had a president of the United States suggested that he would incite an enemy to attack American allies.
Some might see it as typical Trump rally harassment or write it off as a poor attempt at humor. Others may even cheer the hard line against supposedly dead allies who, in their view, have taken advantage of American friendship for far too long. But Mr Trump’s rhetoric portends potentially far-reaching changes in the international order if he wins the White House again in November with unforeseen consequences.
In addition, Mr. Trump’s riff once again raised uncomfortable questions about his taste in friends. Encouraging Russia to attack NATO allies, even if it wasn’t entirely serious, is a stunning statement that underscores its strange affinity with President Vladimir V. Putin, who has already demonstrated a willingness to invade neighboring countries which do not have the protection of NATO.
Long averse to alliances of any kind, a second term for Mr Trump could effectively end the security umbrella that has sheltered friends in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East for much of nearly eight decades since the end of World War II. The mere suggestion that the United States could not be relied on would negate the value of such alliances, push longtime friends to counterbalance and perhaps align with other powers, and embolden Mr. Putin and China’s Xi Jinping.
“Russia and China are nothing compared to America’s allies, and those allies depend on American commitment,” said Douglas E. Lute, a retired lieutenant general who served as ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama and a top advisor to President George W. Bush. for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Calling into question the United States’ commitment to its allies sacrifices America’s greatest advantage vis-à-vis Russia and China, something that neither Putin nor Xi could achieve on their own.”
Undeterred by criticism of his latest comment, Mr Trump doubled down on Sunday.
“No money should be given in the form of foreign aid to any country unless it is as a loan, not just a gift,” he wrote on social media in all caps. “We should never give money anymore,” he added, “without the hope of a payback or without ‘strings’.”
Mr. Trump has long threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO and will no longer be surrounded by the kind of advisers who prevented him from doing so last time. He tried to withdraw US troops from Germany at the end of his presidency in anger at then-chancellor Angela Merkel, a withdrawal that was prevented only because President Biden took office in time to reverse the decision.
Elsewhere, Mr Trump considered withdrawing US troops from South Korea as well, to be discussed, but since leaving office he has said such a move would be a priority in a second term unless South Korea pays more compensation. Mr Trump would also likely cut military aid to Ukraine as it tries to fend off Russian invaders and has offered no support for more aid to Israel in its war with Hamas.
Anticipating the possibility of an American retreat from the world if Mr. Trump returns to office, Congress recently passed legislation barring any president from withdrawing from the NATO treaty without Senate approval. But Mr Trump wouldn’t even have to formally leave the alliance to render it pointless.
And if the United States could not count on helping partners in Europe, where it has the strongest historical ties, then other countries with mutual defenses according to Washington such as Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand , Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama could hardly be sure of American aid.
Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor and former national security aide to Mr. Bush and President Bill Clinton, said Mr. Trump could reduce American troops in Europe to a level that would “make it hollow and ” tactically poor military defense plans’. – express US commitment’ in a way that would convince Mr Putin that he has a free hand.
“Just by doing those two things it could injure and maybe kill NATO,” Mr Feaver said. “And few allies or partners in other parts of the world would trust any US commitment after seeing us break up NATO.”
History shows that this could lead to more war, not less. When Dean Acheson, the secretary of state, outlined an American “defensive perimeter” in Asia in 1950 that did not include South Korea, North Korea invaded five months later, starting a bloody war that nevertheless drew the United States in.
The message from Mr Trump to NATO allies like Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and, yes, Lithuania is that they could be on their own by next January. Just days after Mr Putin told Tucker Carlson that it was Poland’s fault that Adolf Hitler invaded it in 1939, the mood in Warsaw could hardly be more agitated.
“Article 5 has so far been invoked once — to help the US in Afghanistan after 9/11,” Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, noted in an email exchange on Sunday. “Poland sent a brigade for a decade. We didn’t send a bill to Washington.”
Mr. Trump’s disdain for NATO is based on a false assumption that he has repeated for years even after it was corrected, a sign that he is either unable to process information that conflicts with an idea he has in his head or is willing to distort the facts. to suit his preference.
As he has done many times, Mr Trump blamed NATO partners he called “delinquents” for paying for US protection. “You have to pay,” he said. “You have to pay your bills.”
In reality, NATO partners are not paying the US, as Mr Trump has implied. NATO members contribute to a common budget for civil and military expenses according to a formula based on national income and have historically met these obligations.
What Mr. Trump is misleadingly referring to is a goal set by NATO defense ministers in 2006 that each member spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on its own military, a standard endorsed by NATO leaders in 2014 with the ambition of achieving it by 2024. As of last year, just 11 of the 31 members had reached that level, and last summer NATO leaders pledged a “sustained commitment” to finally reach it. But even those who don’t owe money to the United States as a result.
Among the members spending 2% of their economic output on defense are Poland and Lithuania, and the number has risen in the past two years after Russia invaded Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO. Other nations have pledged to increase spending in the coming years.
NATO spending is a legitimate concern, according to national security veterans, and Mr. Trump is not the first president to press NATO partners to do more — Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama did as well. But Mr Trump is the first to portray the alliance as a kind of protectionist racket where those who don’t “pay up” will be abandoned by the United States, much less attacked by Russia with Washington’s encouragement.
“NATO’s credibility rests on the credibility of the man in the Oval Office, as the decisions taken there in a critical situation will be decisive,” said Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, which is completing its membership. in NATO as the 32nd member.
“This applies to what could be crisis management to a small engagement of some kind on the ultimate issue of nuclear deterrence,” he said. “If Putin Threatened Nuclear Strikes Against Poland, Would Trump Say He Doesn’t Care?”
Mr Trump’s insistence on being paid by allies extends beyond Europe. At one point he attacked the mutual defense treaty with Japan that had been in place since 1951, and at other points he prepared to order United States troops out of South Korea. During an interview in 2021, shortly after he left office, he made it clear that if he were to return to power, he would demand that South Korea pay billions of dollars to keep US troops there.
(In fact, South Korea pays $1 billion a year and spent $9.7 billion to expand Camp Humphreys for American forces; Mr. Trump has said he wants $5 billion a year.)
National security veterans from both parties said the thinking misunderstands the value of the alliances to the United States. It’s a boon for Americans, they say, to have overseas bases in places like Germany and South Korea that allow quick responses to crises around the world. It also prevents adventurism by rogue states such as North Korea. “America’s commitment to its allies is not altruism or charity, but serves a vital national interest,” Mr Lute said.
The uncertainty that would result from Mr. Trump’s lack of commitment would lead to instability not seen in years.
“The only saving grace,” Mr. Bildt said, “is that he will probably be so unreliable and unpredictable that even the Kremlin would be a bit unsure. But they would know that they have a lot of chances to play him politically in any crisis.”
