Is the most successful and powerful military alliance in history now a busted flush? This has to be a serious consideration given the bevy of statements from US President Donald Trump and senior administration officials over recent weeks. If the US was to abandon NATO, it would effectively collapse the alliance and send the global security picture headlong into a vicious tailspin, to the background noise of Kremlin celebrations.
This all may be bombast and bluster, with the Trump administration piling the pressure on European states as a consequence of their hesitant-to-nonexistent support over the US-Israeli war on Iran. To answer whether this is a genuine Trump threat or an irritated leader tightening the screws on nervous allies may be impossible, but revisiting how it has come to this matters.
NATO is a huge 32-member military alliance formed in the fledgling years of the Cold War in 1949. In theory, its original mandate was as a collective self-defense instrument to stand up to the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc. Its rival body was the Warsaw Pact.
The key principle is that any member state, if attacked, can invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, triggering assistance from the other members — as an attack on one state is viewed as an attack on all.
While Trump has a point about NATO spending, insisting that its members assist in his war with Israel against Iran is flawed
Chris Doyle
In practice, while the alliance functioned during the Cold War and never saw a direct NATO-Warsaw Pact war, its purpose ever since has been under question. The assumption, in the 1990s at least, was that the Cold War was over and that NATO needed a refreshed raison d’etre. This led to a major expansion, with many former Warsaw Pact countries joining up.
The 9/11 attacks led to the US invoking Article 5 — the only time this has been done in the alliance’s history. NATO forces operated way beyond their traditional theater by deploying in Afghanistan. The alliance also intervened in Libya in 2011 to implement a no-fly zone, but in practice this was an intervention that ended the Qaddafi regime.
With the Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, NATO reverted to more familiar territory. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and any application there would be viewed by President Vladimir Putin as highly aggressive. However, across Eastern Europe, the Baltic and Scandinavia, the Russian threat means NATO’s role is deemed essential. Many of these states fear that Russian expansionism will not end with Ukraine.
Many US administrations over the years have made it known that other member states are overreliant on America and should increase their defense spending. This is a fair point. European states have been slow to react. The advent of Trump changed this. He shook things up, but it was not until last year that he really unleashed his anger. At the June NATO Summit, states queued up to announce additional defense spending commitments. It assuaged Trump’s anger to a degree. But there are still some backmarkers, notably Spain.
But while Trump has a point about NATO spending, insisting that its members assist in his war with Israel against Iran is flawed. NATO is a defensive alliance. Its members are not obligated to follow other members into far-off wars of choice outside of NATO’s theater of operations, not least when they were not consulted prior to the war.
Even if the US does remain as a bit-part NATO member, the mood in Europe now favors greater independence
Chris Doyle
Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of NATO, was in Washington last week. Despite his plentiful praise for the president, the meeting did not resolve matters.
Could Trump take the US out of NATO? Technically, it would have to be approved by Congress, which is unlikely. But the president can shatter the alliance by formally stating the US would not adhere to Article 5. He could remove US troops from bases in Europe. And, most aggressively of all, he could seize Greenland from NATO member Denmark.
The alliance would then exist in name only. The winner would be Putin, who views NATO as his archenemy. Ukraine would be extremely vulnerable, especially if the US pulled its support. Europe would have to solidify its support for Kyiv.
The rest of Europe would need a new defense and security architecture. Much would revolve around the UK, France and Germany. They would have to improve their weapons, particularly in areas that Europe has been overly dependent on others for, such as air defense. Procurement must be accelerated and better coordinated.
Even if the US does remain as a bit-part NATO member, the mood in Europe now favors greater independence. Divorce is no longer seen as a crime. Last month, just 12 percent of those polled in Poland, Spain, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy saw the US as an ally, whereas 36 percent saw it as a threat. Even in the UK, traditionally the US’ closest ally in Europe, public opinion is increasingly seeing Washington as a threat.
But the US should also appreciate what NATO has done for it. Even as a superpower, the US requires allies, especially those that offer bases. A state without allies is far more vulnerable.
BY: Writer Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
