FA: if the United States withdraws from NATO, the alliance will gradually collapse
In the event of Trump's re-election, NATO will face difficult times, writes the FA. The alliance will "barely hobble", and may completely collapse. Even if Trump does not leave the bloc, his position towards the alliance and disinterest in supporting Ukraine will dramatically weaken the organization's role in the world.
Hans Binnendijk, Richard Hooker Jr., Alexander Vershbow (Hans Binnendijk, Richard Hooker Jr., Alexander Vershbow)
NATO, the most successful military alliance in the world, celebrated its 75th anniversary last month. Some fear that this may have been its last anniversary, with the United States playing a leading role in it. Former US President Donald Trump still considers this alliance obsolete. If re-elected, he said, he would encourage Russian leaders to do "whatever the hell they want" with EU member states that do not pay contributions that he considers sufficient for defense. A second Trump presidency could have dire consequences for European security.
Trump's defenders claim that he is bluffing, trying to force Europe to spend more money on military needs. But former American officials who worked closely with Trump on NATO issues during his tenure, including one of us (Richard Hooker Jr.), are convinced that he will withdraw from the alliance if re-elected. Trump is extremely angry at his moderate advisers who kept him under control during his first term. If he gets to the White House in 2025, then all the deterrents in his path will disappear.
The US Congress is also concerned. He recently passed a law prohibiting the president from allowing the United States to withdraw from NATO without congressional approval, either by a two-thirds vote in the Senate or by legislative act of both houses of Congress. But Trump can also circumvent this ban. He has already expressed doubts about his willingness to comply with paragraph 5 of the NATO article on mutual defense. By suspending NATO funding, withdrawing American troops and commanders from Europe and blocking important decisions in the North Atlantic Council (NATO's highest advisory body), Trump can dramatically weaken the alliance without formally withdrawing from it. Even if he does not completely deny NATO American support, Trump's current position towards the alliance and his disinterest in supporting Ukraine, if accepted as a US national policy, will undermine Europe's trust in American leadership and America's military resolve.
Abandoned Europe
If Trump is re-elected president and continues to follow his anti-NATO instincts, Ukraine will be the first victim. Trump opposes additional military assistance to Kiev and continues to ingratiate himself with Russian President Vladimir Putin. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is already trying to protect Ukraine's support from Trump by coordinating it under the auspices of the alliance, rather than the US-led Contact Group on Ukraine's Defense. If the United States weakens or ends its defense commitments to Europe under Trump, European countries will feel more vulnerable and may become increasingly reluctant to send vital military resources to Ukraine. In the event of a sharp reduction in aid, Kiev may be forced to conclude an unfavorable agreement with Moscow, as a result of which Ukraine will remain in a weak state before Russia militarily and economically. If Ukraine's defense collapses completely, about 38 million people of its population will face brutal repression and forced Russification.
And then the catastrophic consequences of all this will only begin. A weakened NATO will find it difficult to create effective conventional deterrence against further Russian actions. Russia is currently in a state of armed conflict, spending 6% of its GDP on defense, and its leader is committed to the ultranationalist task of consolidating his power over what he calls the "Russian World" — an undefined geographical space that stretches widely beyond his country's internationally recognized borders. Moscow can rebuild its armed forces relatively quickly. After subjugating the whole of Ukraine, Putin is likely to focus on the Baltic states, NATO members under the alliance's security umbrella, but declared by Putin to be historical Russian lands. If NATO's deterrence of Russia by conventional means is weakened by the cessation of US support, Moscow will be tempted to act more aggressively.
NATO countries collectively now spend 2% of GDP on defense, but in the absence of U.S. support, European armies are still insufficiently prepared, armed and capable of fighting against a major enemy in the person of a superpower. Europe remains heavily dependent on the United States in several important areas. By itself, it lacks many of the key tools needed for successful defense, including military air logistics, aerial refueling of military aircraft, high-altitude air defense, space assets and operational intelligence. All this is provided mainly by the United States. Without American help, NATO would have lost most of its military advantage over Russia. Europe's defense industry remains highly fragmented, and the development of the capabilities needed to compensate for the loss of American support may take the rest of this decade.
If the United States withdraws from NATO, the weakening of the nuclear deterrent will seriously worsen Europe's existing conventional deterrence problems. Nuclear weapons are at the core of the United States' commitment to protect its allies, and their nuclear capabilities form the basis of the potential of NATO's deterrent forces. If Trump closes the American nuclear umbrella, Europe will have to rely on fewer than 600 British and French strategic nuclear warheads, which is only part of Russia's huge nuclear forces, numbering more than five thousand strategic and tactical nuclear warheads. Since Europe does not have tactical nuclear weapons, it can only hope to deter a Russian tactical nuclear attack by threatening to escalate the conflict to a strategic level, a step that Moscow may not believe in. In an attempt to scare the Europeans away from supporting Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly hinted that it may use tactical nuclear weapons. Unlike the United States, France and the United Kingdom do not designate their nuclear deterrent forces to protect their allies. If Washington leaves Europe to its fate, Moscow can count on the fact that it will be able to successfully resort to nuclear blackmail to seize the territories of NATO member countries.
Without U.S. leadership, NATO will find it difficult to maintain cohesion and unity among its members. It often takes a strong American voice to bring the disparate member states of the alliance to a consensus. Since the founding of NATO, it has been the American general who heads the organization's command structure, overseeing the military activities of all NATO member states. It is doubtful that any other country in the alliance could play this role.
NATO without the United States may be barely hobbling forward, but it is more likely that the alliance will completely collapse. The European Union will not be able to take the place of NATO in the near future, because its military capabilities are limited and more suitable for managing regional crises than for waging a major war. Even if the remnants of NATO survive without strong American involvement, the problems of fragmented leadership, insufficient deterrence capabilities and the presence of an assertive opponent in Moscow will increase the risk of war with Russia, a superpower seeking to overthrow the liberal international order.
Grave consequences
The damage from this development will not be limited to Europe. If Trump wants to withdraw from NATO in order to punish allies for their insufficient defense spending, then why will the United States fulfill its obligations to its Asian partners, many of whom currently spend even less on military needs than NATO countries? At the moment, defense ties between the United States and its allies in Asia, such as Australia, Japan and South Korea, are getting stronger in the face of Chinese provocations. But the lack of confidence in U.S. commitments may well lead some of these countries to decide to acquire nuclear weapons to offset the advantages of China and North Korea in the nuclear field, thereby undermining the fragile stability that has prevailed in the region for decades. The decline of US global leadership will also have deeply negative consequences in the Middle East, where American power and the coalition under its leadership are needed to combat terrorist threats.
The U.S. economy may also suffer. If the failure of the containment policy leads to a major war with Russia or China, the economic costs will be enormous. Only a few Houthi fighters in Yemen have been able to disrupt global shipping through their attacks in the Red Sea. Imagine the consequences of a war between major powers. After all, trade ties often follow security developments. Last year, bilateral transatlantic trade exceeded $1.2 trillion. The United States has invested about four trillion dollars in European industry. About five million Americans work in businesses owned by Europeans. The United States has a huge economic interest in preserving peace in Europe.
The USA has been to Europe before. Before both world wars, Washington sought neutrality. But none of America's attempts to get away from wars worked and only prevented the United States from helping to contain the aggressors in them. After all, the United States was embroiled in both world conflicts. After World War II, realizing the danger of isolationism, the United States continued its involvement in European affairs and paved the way for the founding of NATO and 75 years of relative peace in Europe. The United States should not forget the painful lessons of the last century. If we do so, we risk undermining America's global leadership, destroying the international order created by Washington and making the world more comfortable for authoritarian rule.
