[ad_1]
Shortly after former President Donald J. Trump took office, his staff explained how NATO’s mutual defense obligation would work.
“Does that mean we will go to war with Russia if Russia attacks Lithuania?” he answered. “That’s crazy.”
Mr. Trump has never believed in the fundamental “one for all, all for one” concept of the Atlantic Alliance. In fact, he spent much of his four-year presidency trying to undermine it, while coercing it into keeping his promise to increase spending on his military by threatening to come to his aid if it didn’t. He strongly persuaded member states.
But over the weekend, he took it to a whole new level, declaring at a rally in South Carolina that he would not only not protect European countries he deemed delinquent from attacks by Russia, but would even “encourage” them. . Russia will “do whatever they want” to them. Never before has a U.S. president suggested inciting an enemy to attack a U.S. ally.
Some may dismiss this as a typical Trump rally rant or dismiss it as a poor attempt at humor. This view may encourage some to take a tough stance against a perhaps desperate ally that has taken advantage of America’s friendship for far too long. But Trump’s rhetoric foreshadows the potential for far-reaching changes to the international order if he wins the White House again in November, with unpredictable results.
Additionally, Trump’s comments once again raised uncomfortable questions about his friend’s preferences. Encouraging Russia to attack NATO allies, even if not entirely serious, is a direct response to President Vladimir V. Putin, who has already demonstrated a willingness to invade neighboring countries not protected by NATO. This is a surprising statement that highlights a strange sense of familiarity.
Trump, who has long abhorred alliances of any kind, effectively ended his second term with the security umbrella that protected allies in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East for nearly 80 years after World War II. There is a possibility that . The mere suggestion that the United States is unreliable would negate the value of such an alliance, prompting longtime friends to hedge, perhaps aligning with other countries, and emboldening the likes of Mr. Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. .
“Russia and China are unparalleled to America’s allies, and these allies depend on America’s dedication,” said the former NATO ambassador under President Barack Obama and a top adviser to President George W. Bush. said Douglas E. Root, retired Lt. Gen. About the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “To question America’s commitment to our allies would be to sacrifice America’s greatest advantages vis-a-vis Russia and China, something neither President Putin nor President Xi could have achieved alone.”
Undeterred by criticism over recent comments, Trump doubled down on Sunday.
“No money should be given in the form of foreign aid to any country unless it is given as a loan, not just a gift,” he wrote in all caps on social media. He added: “We should never give money without expecting anything in return or without ‘conditions’ attached.”
Trump has long threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO, and he will no longer surround himself with the kind of advisers who prevented him from doing so last time. Out of anger at then-chancellor Angela Merkel, he tried to withdraw U.S. troops from Germany at the end of his term, but the withdrawal was only prevented when President Biden took office in time to reverse the decision. Body.
At another point, Trump also considered withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea, a discussion that never ended, but after he left office, he said such a step would be banned for a second term unless South Korea pays more money. He said the eyes would be a priority. compensation. Mr. Trump will also likely cut off military aid to Ukraine, which is trying to repel the Russian invaders, and has not expressed his support for further aid to Israel in its war with Hamas.
Anticipating the possibility of the United States withdrawing from the world if Mr. Trump returns to office, Congress recently passed a bill that would prohibit the president from withdrawing from the NATO treaty without Senate approval. But Trump doesn’t even need to formally leave the alliance to render it meaningless.
And if the United States cannot count on the aid of its European partners, with which it has historically the strongest ties, then other countries with which the United States has mutual defense agreements, such as Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand, should Countries will come to help. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama also had little confidence in American aid.
Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor who served as national security adviser to Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton, said Mr. Trump’s use of U.S. forces in Europe “makes any military defense plan hollow.” “There is always the possibility of reductions to poor levels.” “Talk about America’s promises” in a way that convinces Mr. Putin that he has carte blanche.
“Just doing those two things could hurt NATO and possibly destroy NATO,” Feaver said. “And in other parts of the world, few allies or partners will see us break NATO and trust any U.S. commitments.”
History suggests that far from reducing wars, this may lead to more wars. In 1950, when Secretary of State Dean Acheson spoke of a U.S. “defense perimeter” in Asia that did not include South Korea, North Korea invaded five months later, starting a bloody war that still drew the U.S. .
Trump’s signal to NATO allies such as Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and, of course, Lithuania, is that they could gain independence by next January. Days after President Putin told Tucker Carlson that Poland was to blame for Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, the mood in Warsaw could not be more volatile.
“Article 5 has been invoked once before, to support the United States in Afghanistan after 9/11,” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said in an email exchange Sunday. “Poland sent a brigade for 10 years. We haven’t sent a bill to Washington.”
Trump’s expressed disdain for NATO is based on false assumptions that he has repeated for years, even after they have been corrected, and his inability to process information that contradicts the stereotypes in his head. , or an attempt to distort the facts. according to his favorite stories.
As he has repeatedly done, Trump accused NATO allies of being “delinquent” in paying for U.S. protection. “You have to pay,” he said. “Bills must be paid.”
In fact, NATO members are not disbursing funds to the United States, as Mr. Trump suggested. NATO member states contribute to the common budget for civilian and military spending according to a formula based on national income and have historically met these obligations.
Trump is misleadingly referring to the 2006 goal set by NATO defense ministers for each member country to spend 2% of its gross domestic product on its own military; It was ratified by NATO leaders in 2014 with the aim of achieving it by 2024. As of last year, only 11 of its 31 member states had reached that level, and last summer NATO leaders pledged a “enduring effort” to eventually reach that level. However, those who do not have no obligation to pay money to the United States as a result.
Poland and Lithuania are among the member states that spend 2% of their economic output on defense, a number that has increased over the past two years after Russia, which is not a NATO member, invaded Ukraine. Other countries have also pledged to increase spending in the coming years.
National security veterans say NATO spending is a legitimate concern, and Mr. Trump is not the first president to ask NATO members to do more, with Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama doing the same. But Trump has presented the alliance as a kind of human trafficking, with those who don’t “pay up” being abandoned by the United States, much less exposed to Russian attacks encouraged by the United States. It’s the first time I’ve done that.
“The credibility of NATO depends on the credibility of the person who occupies the Oval Office, because in times of crisis the decisions made there are decisive,” said Sweden, which has completed its membership. said former Prime Minister Karl Bildt. Joined NATO as the 32nd member state.
“This applies to crisis management in some kind of small-scale engagement with the ultimate issue of nuclear deterrence,” he said. “If President Putin threatened a nuclear attack on Poland, would President Trump say he didn’t care?”
Trump’s obsession with quid pro quos from allies extends beyond Europe. At one point he attacked the mutual defense treaty with Japan that had been in effect since 1951, and at another he was preparing to order U.S. troops out of South Korea. In a 2021 interview shortly after he left office, he vowed that if he returned to power, he would demand that South Korea pay billions of dollars to keep U.S. troops there.
(In fact, South Korea paid $1 billion a year and spent $9.7 billion expanding the US military’s Camp Humphreys. Mr. Trump said he wanted $5 billion a year.)
National security veterans from both parties said that idea misunderstands the value of the alliance to the United States. They say it’s an advantage for Americans to have overseas bases like Germany and South Korea, which can quickly respond to crises around the world. It also deters adventurism by exiled states like North Korea. “America’s commitment to our allies is not a matter of altruism or charity; it is in our vital national interests,” Lieut said.
The uncertainty arising from Trump’s lack of commitment will lead to volatility not seen in years.
“The only saving grace is,” Bildt said. “Maybe he’s so unreliable and unpredictable that even the Kremlin would be nervous. But they could very well use him politically in any crisis. You know that.”
[ad_2]
Source link
