Trump doesn’t need to quit NATO to fatally undermine it
The world's most successful defensive alliance turns 77, will it last?
NATO’s 77th birthday is more a day of extreme crisis management than celebration, that is, unless you are Vladimir Putin.
Formed on April 4 1949, NATO today has expanded from its founding 12 members to 32 and by the US State Department’s own words, ‘remains the largest peacetime military alliance in the world.’
But it is in jeopardy. Donald Trump, enraged that Europe has not rushed to collaborate with his war against Iran, has put US NATO membership on the table.
When asked by the UK’s Daily Telegraph if he was reconsidering US membership of the Alliance, the US President said: ‘Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.’
This is a menacing threat from Trump, especially as he invoked Putin.
At the heart of NATO is the Three Musketeers’ ‘One for all, All for One’ pledge in Article 5, which states: ‘The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.’
‘In the 1950s, one of the first military doctrines of NATO emerged in the form of “massive retaliation,” or the idea that if any member was attacked, the United States would respond with a large-scale nuclear attack,’ the State Department’s Office of Historian said.
‘The threat of this form of response was meant to serve as a deterrent against Soviet aggression on the continent.’
Russia has been waging an illegal war against Ukraine for more than four years. Trump promised to end the war in one day but has instead regularly sided with Putin and failed to use US pressure, cajoling or sweeteners to force Russia to agree to a ceasefire.
By saying he could quit NATO and that both he and Putin think its deterrence value (without the US) is an illusion, Trump is all but sending a green light to Putin, at the very least an orange one – it is certainly not red, the very purpose of NATO.
It is tempting to dismiss Trump’s threats as another case of his extreme negotiating style, an emotional outburst or another empty threat.
But this would be a delusional approach.
Trump’s attacks on NATO have been backed across his Administration, including by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is viewed as the sensible figure in the Administration and not automatically hostile to Europe.
‘If now we have reached a point where the NATO Alliance means that we can’t use those bases, that in fact – that we can no longer use those bases to defend America’s interests, then NATO is a one-way street; then NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to defend Europe, but when we need their help – not their help – we’re not asking them to conduct airstrikes,’ Rubio told FOX.
‘When we need them to allow us to use their military bases, their answer is no? Then why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question: Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars, over the years trillions of dollars, and all these American forces stationed in the region if we can only use them, we can – when in our time of need we’re not going to be allowed to use those bases?
‘So I think there is no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to re-examine that relationship. We’re going to have to re-examine the value of NATO and that Alliance for our country.’
European leaders may come to regret their decision to refuse the Trump Administration use of joint bases to attack Iran. The UK’s Keir Starmer belatedly fixed this error, but has been in Trump’s firing line ever since his initial refusal.
But it is not the sole cause of the open split between the US and most of Europe. Trump has been justified in complaining about Europe’s underinvestment in its own defences, something he has successfully demanded they fix.
But his threat to invade Greenland, administered by Denmark, a NATO ally, was the start of the fissure that has widened even more as a result of Iran.
Rubio’s intervention is arguably as damaging as Trump’s. As Senator, he co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to prevent any President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO. Any Presidential attempt to quit would require Congressional approval, something Trump would not be granted.
‘Any President that contemplates attempting to withdraw from NATO is not only fulfilling Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping’s greatest dreams but would be undermining America’s own national security interests,’ two retiring Senators who co-chair the Senate NATO Observer Group, Jeanne Shaheen (Democrat) and Republican Thom Tillis, said in a statement.
‘Let us be clear, Congress will not allow the United States to withdraw from NATO.
‘That will not happen. Congress and the American people know we are stronger when we stand with our allies. This is a basic fact and one that we ignore only to our own detriment.’
But the Senators’ statement, however well-intentioned, offers false comfort.
Trump doesn’t need Congress or a formal departure from NATO to dangerously undermine it. Simply throwing Article 5 into question is enough. If collective defence, i.e. US defence, can no longer be guaranteed, NATO stands on stilts.
‘We should treat (US withdrawal from NATO) as a possible scenario and take it seriously - us in Poland, especially on the eastern flank, and all of us, across the political spectrum,’ Poland’s Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Radosław Sikorski said.
Sikorski has previously urged Poland to adopt two ‘insurance policies.’
‘It turns out that we must consider alternatives. Of course, NATO is the cornerstone of our security. Of course, we want to be a good, loyal ally of the United States, but we cannot pretend that the US President isn’t saying what he is saying.’
Europe can defend itself against Russia, without the US. But without the US there is no NATO. And the very public breakdown in trust between Europe and the White House all benefits one man.
‘The threat of NATO’s break-up, easing sanctions on Russia, a massive energy crisis in Europe, halting aid for Ukraine and blocking the loan for Kyiv by Orbán - it all looks like Putin’s dream plan,’ Sikorski’s boss, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said.
Next week, Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who fawns over and flatters the ‘Daddy’ President, heads to the White House for another round of Operation Save the Alliance over Trump’s Epic Fury.
On Wednesday, Rutte will meet Trump, Rubio and the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth before a major speech on Thursday to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation Institute.
NATO needs to survive two more birthdays before Trump’s term ends. It has been only three months since he threatened to invade Greenland.