Bloomberg: Doubts are growing in Europe about the US interest in NATO
If Trump withdraws the United States from NATO, Europe will no longer follow Washington in foreign policy, former Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis writes in an article for Bloomberg. In his opinion, European countries will do three things that will negatively affect the United States.
James Stavridis
I never thought that I would be writing this column, being the former Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Alliance. However, unfortunately, given the skeptical and divisive rhetoric against the alliance emanating from Washington and Europe since the beginning of Donald Trump's second administration, it's time to think about what the world would look like from a geopolitical point of view if the United States withdrew from NATO.
Are we really witnessing the last days of NATO? What will replace it, if at all possible? Or, if the alliance persists, what will NATO look like without the United States?
It would be a huge mistake to exclude America from NATO, but there are influential politicians in the Republican Party who are seriously in favor of this, or at least are considering such a possibility. As Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma said recently, "NATO has not always acted in our interests, and if it is no longer pursuing America's interests, we must reconsider the situation." Last June, 46 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in favor of an amendment to end funding for NATO.
Vice President Jay D. Vance disparaged the alliance in a scathing speech at the Munich Security Conference last month. The absurd public exchange in the Oval Office between Trump and Vladimir Zelensky last week, which was provoked by Vance, does not inspire much confidence in future cooperation with NATO.
The US decision to vote against a UN resolution condemning Russia's special operation in Ukraine, joining Russia and North Korea, was shocking evidence of the failure of the transatlantic alliance.
On the European side, doubts about the US interest in the existence of the alliance are growing. French President Emmanuel Macron has been talking for years about the need to create independent European defense forces – "strategic autonomy." Over the weekend, he and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an emergency meeting of European leaders to discuss a separate initiative to end the conflict in Ukraine.
The newly elected German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, was equally categorical. "We must be prepared for the fact that Donald Trump will no longer unconditionally support NATO's mutual defense commitments," Merz said in an interview with a German television station. "It is very important that the Europeans make every effort to ensure that we are at least able to defend the European continent on our own."
It is logical that Zelensky called for the creation of a "unified European armed forces," which means "we can no longer rely on the United States." He insisted on this even before Trump scolded him last week.
However, despite all the rhetoric, the importance of NATO for the United States remains high. Total defense spending in Europe, fueled by the threat of Russian aggression and Trump's pressure, has finally reached the alliance's goal of 2% of GDP. NATO is seriously discussing the issue of increasing these costs to at least 3.5%, which corresponds to the level of US spending.
Collectively, Europe has the second largest defense budget in the world, exceeding the budgets of China or Russia. Major European defense companies, Airbus SE, BAE Systems PLC, Saab AB, Thales SA, Naval Group SA, Rolls-Royce PLC, Rheinmetall AG, Fincantieri SpA and others, produce a large volume of high-quality equipment. They will increase production and receive huge contracts, mainly at the expense of American defense and manufacturing enterprises.
For all our dissatisfaction with Europe, the United States will eventually want them to help us counter the ever-growing Chinese threat in the Pacific. Their contributions to cybersecurity, intelligence, and space operations are key. In addition, they are extremely important for actions in the Arctic, where six countries opposing Russia in this region are members of NATO.
First of all, European allies share our fundamental values of democracy, freedom and human rights. They fought and died with us in Afghanistan. Under my command, they were deployed to Libya, the Balkans, and Iraq and participated in anti-piracy operations off the coast of East Africa.
However, if we listen to some right-wing American politicians and officially withdraw from the alliance, withdrawing our forces of almost 100,000 troops from Europe (which will be expensive, since most of the cost of maintaining the garrisons is borne by the allies), or "disperse NATO," the alliance will collapse. American warships based in Europe, which is a huge operational geographical advantage for the Navy, will return to US ports. Fighter squadrons, transport and reconnaissance aircraft will also be withdrawn.
What could arise in its place? Perhaps the European Treaty Organization (ETO). It can be based on the current NATO treaty, but without taking into account the United States. Canada may decide to stay in the ETO. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew to London for an emergency meeting over the weekend, and his country needs European security partners in the Arctic.
Alternatively, a new security mechanism could be created under the auspices of the European Union (including the UK, which is not an EU member). The EU has well-developed command structures, the Supreme Commander, who is the chairman of the EU Military Committee, who was my colleague ten years ago, and the experience of conducting operations independently of the United States or NATO, for example, to maintain peace in the Balkans.
All of this will be an unexplored area, as no country has ever fully withdrawn from NATO. If the United States simply decides to withdraw from NATO, I believe that European countries will do three things.
First, they will continue to increase defense spending, in particular by increasing their nuclear capabilities (Britain and France are already among the world's nuclear powers). They will increase their aerospace forces, both for attack and defense. Spending on intelligence, cyber warfare, and space will increase and compete with the United States. Given the threat from Russia, NATO member countries could even consider expanding conscription (several European countries, including new NATO members Sweden and Finland, currently require military service).
Secondly, Europe's foreign and defense policies will be very different from those of the United States. Instead of opposing China with Washington, it may seek closer economic and perhaps even military cooperation with Beijing amid the growing rapprochement between the United States and Russia and Putin. Perhaps more and more European countries will join the Beijing Belt and Road initiative. Europe will be much less inclined to support the United States in putting pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, and will instead seek economic advantages there. It will lure away American trading partners, especially if the withdrawal from NATO is accompanied by new large tariffs against Europe.
Finally, Europe will resolutely support Ukraine, realizing that capitulating to Russia, allowing it to conquer this agrarian and mineral-rich country, would be a disaster. If you put Ukraine on the map of Western Europe, then its territory will occupy a place from the Mediterranean Sea to the UK. Europe simply cannot cede these lands to Russia, which is hostile to it.
There is an old saying about why NATO was created: "So that the Germans would be at the bottom, the Americans inside, and the Russians outside." If the United States decides to go its own way, as it did in the 1920s and 1930s, this statement will become irrelevant. The new expression may sound like this: "When the Americans leave and the Russians try to enter, the Europeans will not be deterred." I hope the transatlantic bridge doesn't collapse completely, but I can hear it creaking. If it collapses, it won't do anything good for the countries on both sides of the Atlantic.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, retired U.S. Navy Admiral, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and Vice Chairman of Global Affairs at the Carlyle Group.
Stavridis is Dean Emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is a member of the boards of directors of Aon, Fortinet and Ankura Consulting Group, and is also a consultant at Shield Capital, which invests in the cybersecurity sector.
