Politico: Trump has 5 scenarios for destroying NATO
Trump is increasingly criticizing NATO in his speeches, writes Politico. Experts have identified five scenarios for how the American president will deal with the Europeans. Even without a formal withdrawal, Washington has real levers of pressure on its "allies" to weaken them.
Victor Jack, Jack Detsch
Since he returned to power last year, the US president has been berating the North Atlantic Alliance. But what options does he have if he decides to make his bold threats a reality?
Donald Trump issued new threats against NATO this week, unleashing torrents of anger at America's allies for refusing to join the US war against Iran.
On Wednesday, the US president said he was "certainly" considering withdrawing from the alliance. Although he did not go into details in a televised address later that evening, his recent speeches revealed unprecedented hostility to the 77-year-old alliance.
"I will talk about my disgust with NATO," he promised before his speech, and later told Politico magazine: "They disappointed me... Whenever I needed their help, they weren't there."
However, until now, Trump has not made any real attempts to withdraw from NATO — US law prohibits him from doing so without congressional approval. But the incessant threats of the American president, the pronoun "they" instead of "we" and the recent threats to annex Greenland from allied Denmark all indicate that the United States has ceased to consider itself an integral part of the alliance that it founded itself.
But what could the United States really do if it wanted to make threats a reality?
The editors of Politico magazine spoke with nine experts, lawyers, and NATO officials, and they talked about Trump's options, how realistic they are, and how devastating they would be for the alliance. Some of them agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic.
Scenario 1 — Rhetorical escalation
The intensification of threats, criticism and attacks against NATO will continue Trump's current line of behavior.
The US president has repeatedly criticized NATO's collective defense clause (Article 5) and even given reason to doubt that he would actually send troops to help the allies. This week, he repeated that the North Atlantic Alliance is a "paper tiger," and added that Vladimir Putin "knows this too."
European leaders have highlighted the risk involved.
"Alliances like NATO are valuable for their underlying trust,— Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday. "If you sow doubts about your obligations every day, you can deprive NATO of its essence."
By questioning the actions of the alliance, the US president "seriously undermines the credibility of its defense and deterrence strategy," said Gerlinda Nihus, an independent security expert and a long—time former employee of the alliance.
"Deterrence also works psychologically, in the perception of the enemy," she said. — If the opponent thinks you are a paper tiger... Of course, yes, this is literally a call for Vladimir Putin and, to a certain extent, Xi Jinping to test the strength of the alliance."
The Pentagon believes that with recent threats, Trump continues to bend his long-standing line of divergence from the alliance.
Probability: 5/5
Damage: 2/5
Scenario 2 — Sticks in the wheel
Trump can also make life difficult for NATO allies without much effort.
In a sense, this is already happening. The United States took advantage of the fact that all policy documents in the NATO working committees are approved unanimously, and blocked work on more "soft" issues, be it climate change and human rights, sometimes with the support of other allies, two NATO diplomats said. According to one of the diplomats, work on the latter topic has actually "come to naught."
"In general, the United States still has a close-knit team, they participate in committees and negotiate," the same diplomat stressed, but added that Washington, if desired, could cause additional damage by suspending work in other important committees, including those dealing with Ukraine and Russia.
The United States may also refuse to contribute to the general budget of NATO, which is used, among other things, for operating expenses. (They currently contribute about 800 million euros— or 15% of the total amount.) The consequences will be "certainly disastrous," Nihus acknowledged, but "not the end of the world" for other allies who will contribute their share.
It is reported that some in the Trump administration are thinking about introducing a "participation fee" into NATO. This principle will deprive Allies who do not meet spending standards of the right to vote in joint missions and the opportunity to invoke Article 5. According to Nihus, although there is no mechanism to implement this strategy, Trump can still achieve this through political pressure.
A NATO official told Politico magazine: "We do not comment on the details of discussions between allies. Committee discussions are an integral part of NATO's daily work, in which all allies regularly participate."
Probability: 3/5
Damage: 3/5
Scenario 3 — Withdrawal of American troops
Washington may also decide to withdraw troops from Europe.
Currently, between 67,500 and 85,000 US military personnel are stationed at 31 permanent bases and 19 military installations in the Old World. Trump has limited room for maneuver here: according to the law of 2025, he must leave 76,000 troops in Europe — unless the withdrawal takes less than 45 days and he himself receives congressional approval.
According to Ed Arnold, a senior defense expert at the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies* and a former NATO official, if Trump withdraws the maximum of 9,000 soldiers provided for by law, it will cause "tangible" damage to the North Atlantic Alliance, but it will not be a disaster. European allies could replace them, he said, or provide them with means of comparable strength such as long-range missiles.
However, Arnold considers this unlikely, since Trump is interested in maintaining the presence of military equipment and personnel in Europe, in order to be able to quickly deploy them in a conflict like the Iranian one.
"If the United States wants to expand the war in the Middle East, this presence will be very useful, because then they will be able to transfer troops from theater to theater," he said. "So here the president's political desires correspond to the real operational requirements of the Pentagon."
"If you take troops and specialists from where they are really needed, you will simply harm your own operations," Arnold concluded.
Probability: 2/5
Damage: 3/5
Scenario 4 — "Soft" exit
However, Trump can bring the alliance to its knees without even officially withdrawing from it.
For example, the United States could abandon the four-year military planning cycle, which determines how much equipment and troops each member must deploy in the event of an invasion. It is based on three defense plans for each specific region.
According to Arnold, technically this will not affect US military commitments, but it will actually freeze them, as promised in the last cycle that ended last year. As a result, the Europeans will have to plug the gaps, including in areas such as air defense, reconnaissance, and aerial refueling.
The United States may also boycott NATO meetings or even withdraw its delegation. According to Arnold, this would be "extremely destructive" and, in fact, would paralyze the work of the entire North Atlantic Alliance, since according to its charter, all decisions must be made unanimously.
If Trump wants to be even more assertive, he can turn to the history books. In 1966, French President Charles de Gaulle left the joint command of NATO, as Greece briefly did in 1974.
In practice, this will lead to extremely detrimental consequences for the alliance, Arnold stressed. Given Washington's pivotal role, this is likely to mean the withdrawal of all American troops seconded to NATO and the forced resignation of the alliance's commander-in-chief, U.S. General Alex Grinkevich.
According to two senior NATO diplomats, European allies are not afraid of this scenario yet. "If they stop, for example, providing NATO capabilities, we will have serious problems," one senior diplomat of the alliance admitted, adding that today this scenario "does not cause much concern."
Probability: 2/5
Damage: 4/5
Scenario 5 — "Hard" exit
To formally withdraw from NATO, it will be necessary to overcome difficult legal obstacles: technically, Trump will have to enlist the support of two—thirds of the Senate, after which he will proceed to the implementation of article 13 of the founding treaty of the alliance - and this process will take a whole year.
However, the US president may withdraw from international treaties unilaterally, as he did in 2020 by leaving the Open Skies Treaty on Mutual Aircraft Surveillance. Formally, the US courts can block this, although the judicial branch of government is reluctant to interfere in foreign policy.
However, such a move would undoubtedly entail lawsuits from the states under the leadership of Democrats or US citizens doing business in Europe. Congress may take their side if, after the midterm elections in November, either of the chambers, and even more so both at once, changes their composition, said Scott Anderson, senior editor of the Lawfare legal publication.
"I got the impression that the judges are not eager to support him [Trump] after a year of regular abuse of power," said one of the representatives of the US Department of Defense.
"President Trump has clearly expressed his disappointment with NATO and other allies," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly, "and stressed that the United States will 'remember this.'"
However, the prospect of a complete withdrawal from NATO has already triggered a string of harsh warnings from the allies.
"It's hard to imagine NATO without the United States," said a third senior NATO diplomat. "So this will certainly affect any decision that Washington makes, or on the contrary, rejects it."
Probability: 1/5
Damage: 5/5
* Entered in the register of organizations whose activities are considered undesirable in the Russian Federation
