Giles Merritt: Trump’s Actions Undermine NATO Despite Not Withdrawing

No sooner had Donald Trump been re-elected than his impetuous remarks included the threat of withdrawing the United States from NATO.

Europeans now recognize that this is unlikely to occur; instead, he appears to be ignoring NATO’s very existence.

Seventy-five years of transatlantic security collaboration are being discarded by a US President whose controversial and arguably dubious business dealings reflect his disdain for agreements and solemn commitments.

Trump’s refusal to honor collective security as outlined in Article 5 of the founding Washington Treaty indicates a weakening of NATO.

It is challenging to predict what kind of security framework could either replace or mirror a diminished NATO that lacks support from the US.

Nonetheless, European peacekeeping efforts in Ukraine, possibly involving a no-fly zone monitored by French and British fighter jets, seem increasingly plausible.

Moscow cautions that any European intervention would be “unacceptable,” yet Putin would need to consider carefully before escalating conflict.

The transatlantic relationship stands as the major victim of Trump’s reckless approach to the alliance.

Over the years, this has woven a network of trade and investment partnerships valued in trillions, and while these won’t disappear overnight, the impact on mutual trust will be significant.

‘The West’ will no longer serve as the foundation of the global economy.

Instability in financial markets and the prospect of a 1930s-like economic depression could threaten political instabilities that may lead to armed conflicts.

A split across the Atlantic would be devastating not only for both regions but also for the world.

Instability in financial markets and the potential for a 1930s-style economic depression would risk political instabilities conducive to armed conflict.

Donald Trump’s shift away from America’s post-World War II foreign policy in favor of Vladimir Putin remains enigmatic, fueling speculation about possible questionable incidents in his past career.

Similarly plausible is the idea that Trump and his MAGA supporters view the EU and its member states as ideological opponents to be challenged.

On a more positive note, Europeans are finally stepping up to invest in their own security and defense.

This effort began in earnest with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has gained momentum due to the Trump Administration’s ‘rogue’ stance towards NATO.

Debates abound regarding Europe’s financial commitments to defense and aid for Ukraine, but the most pressing issue is the lack of cooperation among European nations.

Consequently, discussions of a “European army” appear far-fetched.

Europe is not as weak as some suppose.

A recent Pentagon report highlighted that its “below-the-line” spending per capita on security and defense, including peacekeeping and sanctions costs, matches that of the US.

Europe’s challenge lies not only in increasing funding for AI-related technologies that are transforming weaponry but also in realizing its long-awaited ‘defense identity’.

The newly appointed Commissioner for Defense – former Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius – is set to present a strategy in a White Paper focused on fostering closer cooperation among Europe’s national defense powerhouses.

As Mario Draghi noted in his competitiveness report last year, nearly two-thirds of Europe’s military equipment is sourced from the US.

However, some analysts caution against favoring major corporations like Germany’s Rheinmetall, Italy’s Leonardo, Airbus Defense, and BAe in the UK.

While they might be poised to capture a significant share of new funding, it might be wiser to allocate resources to innovators such as Ukraine’s ‘amateur’ drone manufacturers and the digital ‘unicorns’ thriving in Silicon Valley but yet to emerge in Europe.

Relying on US military capabilities has resulted in a notable deficiency in combat readiness and perilous weaknesses in advanced weapon technologies.

Restoring 35 years of neglect will require at least a decade.

Relying on US military might has produced a worrying lack of combat capabilities and critical deficiencies in cutting-edge weapon technologies.

It has also left Europeans regrettably dependent on the US for various forms of support, from intelligence gathering to naval outreach and heavy airlift capabilities.

Nonetheless, Europe can seize the opportunity to gain from significant advancements in AI, drones, fiber optics, and unmanned weapons, allowing it to catch up in areas at risk of technological obsolescence.

The conflict in Ukraine rapidly illustrated how Russia’s formidable Black Sea fleet became tragically susceptible to inexpensive naval drones, similar to its fortified airbases.

The future of NATO remains uncertain, and how this situation unfolds is still to be determined.

The top brass at the Pentagon understand that the US would not gain from acting as a solitary security power.

Despite the assertive discourse surrounding the size and firepower of its military, being isolated from allies would undermine US authority.

From the European perspective, the challenge will not only involve bolstering military strength.

The cornerstone of its security lies in an overhaul of EU decision-making. The current sluggish pace, hindered by the necessity for unanimous agreement on crucial initiatives, calls for the EU to confront the reforms it has long evaded – treaty amendments.

*The opinions expressed in this Frankly Speaking op-ed reflect those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Friends of Europe.

*This article originally appeared on the Friends of Europe website and is reproduced here with permission.

*The views of this article’s author, Giles Merritt, do not necessarily align with those of The Bulrushes.