NATO during a Trump Presidency: Stay, Pay, or why don't you all just f-f-fade away?

In light of the following campaign comments made by president-elect Trump -- and these were made after several weeks of thought following the initial NATO comments -- what do you see as the likely changes in the NATO relationship and why?



It was on March 23, during an interview with Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, that Trump, when asked, said he would “certainly look at” getting rid of NATO because it “may be obsolete” (16:12 in the video).

Quote:

---

Halperin, March 23: Should America be the leader of NATO or not necessarily?

Trump: I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was set up a long time ago — many, many years ago when things were different. Things are different now. We were a rich nation then. We had nothing but money. We had nothing but power. And you know, far more than we have today, in a true sense. And I think NATO — you have to really examine NATO. And it doesn’t really help us, it’s helping other countries. And I don’t think those other countries appreciate what we’re doing.

Heilemann: So, just to be clear, you made two slightly different arguments there and I just want to clarify. One of them is that you might want to see the U.S. pay less money into NATO because …

Trump: That one definitely. That one definitely.

Heilemann: But it’s possible that NATO is obsolete and should be gotten rid of?

Trump: It’s possible. It’s possible. I would certainly look at it. And I’d want more help from other people. The one thing definitely — we’re paying too much. As to whether or not it’s obsolete, I’ll make that determination.

---

I know Fragony's BBF Junker is rubbing his hands with glee now Trump has given him the mandate and Europeans the potential appetite for the European Army and Superstate if he enacts half of what he is suggesting, and the potential consequences of these actions.

On another note, it is no secret that NATO is the covert-name of American hegemony over Europe. By pulling back on it, America is no longer in control of it. So it depends on the foreign policy you want enact. American hegemony over Europe, or a stronger more independent Europe.

This is similar to other parts of the world, such as SATO could lead to the constitutional change for the re-armament of Japan, and escalate tensions with North Korea. This is very evident especially when he suggested just to give the Nuke to South Korea and Japan.

Trump administration also has the potential of giving Russia greater free reign in foreign affairs, leading to greater loss of American hegemony, and the fall of the American Empire. The Fall of this Empire will be more accelerated and China may even play a greater role in foreign affairs, expanding their influence even more aggressively than what they are currently doing.

So it boils down to this, What will Trump actually do in office compared to what he said he will do? Smartest thing would be for him to backtrack on almost every remark he made, and actually end up as a half-decent president, especially considering he has both the houses.

To be honest, this is one of the major areas where a Trump presidency concerns me (that and nuclear proliferation). NATO has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for almost 70 years, no matter who is in office. To think it will be upended by Trump is rather disconcerting. Putin obviously sees this and will probably act accordingly. But the erratic nature of Trump (at least in the election) make it so its hard to tell what he will do. Perhaps he will be a steady supporter of NATO now that hes in office and that hes not the friend of the Kremlin that some in Russia hoped. I really do not know. I just saw his 100-day plan he released, and so far no mention of backing out of NATO. And I dont think he will get rid of NATO, which would require an act of congress anyways, but I can see him using it as a bargaining chip.

He wants you lot to pay a higher share of the freight, I believe, but not to trash the whole thing.

This is so the Baltic states and Finland will pay the 2% and not point to the current freeloaders. This is all about NATO expansion. This has national review play all over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

He wants you lot to pay a higher share of the freight, I believe, but not to trash the whole thing.

---

This is a misnomer unless he is suggesting downsizing the American military. You would still be paying out the money, but your troops would be located elsewhere. Elsewhere would also mean a lot less say in how things are done in Europe, and also greater European militaries as a result of paying 'more into the share' will mean the USA has a lot less influence on NATO. At the moment, NATO is effectively the USA controlled, so getting the rest to pay more, means they will remove this control. As you yanks put it "No taxation without representation".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

He wants you lot to pay a higher share of the freight, I believe, but not to trash the whole thing.

---

Thats true, but higher defense spending is a) not feasible for all allies due to smaller economies and b) large defense budgets doesnt always mean more participation. Look at Greece, they spend well over the 2% defense spending goal and yet they do basically nothing in the alliance. Then you look at Denmark who spends around 1% on defense spending yet are very active in the alliance, in the Libyan campaign they dropped one fifth of all ordnance dropped by the alliance. So just meeting the defense spending goal does not mean they are actually contributing to the alliance.

And I should mention that Estonia pays over the 2%, the other two Baltics are around 1.5%. So not so far off.

Finland isn't in NATO, but it certainly contributes more than many members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

100-day plan

---

A few of those are surprisingly good. But he still has the dumb stuff like building a wall and make Mexico pay for it, within it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

A few of those are surprisingly good. But he still has the dumb stuff like building a wall and make Mexico pay for it, within it.

---

Not to mention the whole "for everyone one new regulation, remove two existing ones." Like how would that even work? But thats off topic.

Good, Trump is the only one to open a dialogue about what actual de-escalation with Russia would involve. He already eluded to:

1) Stop treating it like an ideological war, it's not
2) No double-dealing in counterterrorism, put them all down
3) Rein in NATO, you have a new partner and they will reap what you have sowed with your failures

What worries me the most is his neocon cabinet, which are not exactly consistent with his own views.

Because previous attempts to reset relations have gone so swimmingly. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Because previous attempts to reset relations have gone so swimmingly. :dizzy2:

---

Maybe those three things above your post that distinguish him from all his predecessors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Because previous attempts to reset relations have gone so swimmingly. :dizzy2:

---

Obama was rather successful with Dmitry Medvedev... then Putin returned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

Maybe those three things above your post that distinguish him from all his predecessors?

---

I dont think you have been paying much attention. Post 9/11, the counter-terrorism bonds between the US and Russia were strengthened by intelligence sharing mainly. Obama cut down on NATO presence in Europe due to the sequester, even cancelled a missile defense shield plan in Central Europe that Russia opposed. I think you see it as NATO being the primary aggressor. I think its more about Putin keeping power through an "us versus them" mentality in Russia by constantly ensuring that the populace is mobilized against foreign threats, real or imagined. With the economy in Russia tanking (GDP growth in 2015 was -3.727%) Putin needs a distraction. He needed it in 1999 with the Second Chechen War, he needed it in 2008 with the war in Georgia, he needed it in 2014 with Ukraine, and when Ukraine wasnt going so hot he needed it in 2015 with his show of force in Syria. Dude just wants to keep power, thats why hes been castrating so many human rights groups by labeling them as foreign agents. Last month they labeled Memorial as a foreign agent, a group set up in 1989 to commemorate the victims of Stalinist terror. Dont get me wrong, there is blame to be had on both sides in this issue, but those who think that the Russians dont have a good amount of the blame are naive.

Complete withdrawl from NATO seems contrary to American interests.
Loss of influence in Europe, and the abandonment of "containment" on Russia.
Essentially two linchpins of American strategy since the end of WWII. The radical pivot in strategy would be a huge gamble. The savings might be nice, if they materialize; would Congress actually redirect money from the military?; demobilize or redeploy that part of the Armed Forces? These questions don't even touch on the European reaction.

Let's be honest here - Germany doesn't spend enough on NATO, and I read a few years back that about 25% of the Heer are too fat to pass a basic fitness test.

I don't know if that's still true but the current German Army is around 55,000 men where it should probably be double that - even the British Army is around 85,000 men.

Aside from that, it's actually sensible to point out that the original motivation for creating and maintaining NATO (constant threat of expansion from the USSR) is no longer present. So re-evaluating the purpose and necessity of NATO is reasonable. It should also be pointed out that NATO would still be dominated by the US even if other countries pulled their weight (nobody does).

Now, on the other side of that you have to consider that Trump will now be "Read In" to everything American Intelligence knows, and that may well modify his opinion of Russia.

Also dont forget that just last year, half of the German air force was not operational. The European allies definitely need to spend more/better on defense, no doubt about it. But threatening the very essence of the alliance is not the way to do it.

There was a time when reforming NATO to include Russian interests was possible, and that was in the 90's after the USSR fell. But that time is long gone, as we have seen with Georgia, Ukraine, and the numerous provocations in the Baltics. When the Kremlin states that Russia will use force to protect Russians abroad, can we blame the Baltics, who have large Russian minorities, for being terrified? They saw Western inaction on Ukraine when Russia seized Crimea. If there isnt weight behind NATO, what is stopping a repeat from occurring in the Baltics?

What does contributing to NATO mean exactly?

I have a feeling that many here think it is and should be a defensive alliance and everything will be fine.
If the idea is to make countries spend more to be of more help in offensive wars started by the US, then quite a few people here might think about voluntarily leaving NATO, some actually already do.

Thats why Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) was not invoked for Iraq since it was an offensive war. It was invoked for the only time ever after the 9/11 attacks. Then the alliance went into Afghanistan, where half of the current NATO force is European (other half is American). Call it an offensive war if you want, but within the NATO treaty it is explicitly stated that if Article 5 is called, allies can respond how they want. Which is why some allies sent a token force to Afghanistan and some went as far as sending tanks. Its up to the political will of the government. Which is why Germany didnt contribute to the Libyan air campaign. That being said, if you are under protection of not just Article 5 but also the nuclear umbrella of NATO, some contribution is expected, at the very least in joint readiness exercises and local operations. For example, NATO just launched Operation Sea Guardian to help combat human trafficking in the Aegean and Greece begrudgingly sent a submarine. One would expect an eagerness to contribute to an operation that pertains so much to a local situation but the political will doesnt seem to be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What does contributing to NATO mean exactly?

I have a feeling that many here think it is and should be a defensive alliance and everything will be fine.
If the idea is to make countries spend more to be of more help in offensive wars started by the US, then quite a few people here might think about voluntarily leaving NATO, some actually already do.

---

In the case of Germany it means a 100,000 man army and your tanks in the former Eastern Bloc nations to act as a shield against Russian aggression - not in Germany being mothballed while your soldiers get fat.

In the case of the UK it should probably mean ordering enough Frigates and Destroyers to protect our new CVA's and committing to having a proper air-wing onboard, which means a minimum of 24 jets during peacetime. It should have also meant fitting cats and traps and buying F-18's.

Again, lack of political will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Thats why Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) was not invoked for Iraq since it was an offensive war. It was invoked for the only time ever after the 9/11 attacks. Then the alliance went into Afghanistan, where half of the current NATO force is European (other half is American). Call it an offensive war if you want, but within the NATO treaty it is explicitly stated that if Article 5 is called, allies can respond how they want. Which is why some allies sent a token force to Afghanistan and some went as far as sending tanks. Its up to the political will of the government. Which is why Germany didnt contribute to the Libyan air campaign. That being said, if you are under protection of not just Article 5 but also the nuclear umbrella of NATO, some contribution is expected, at the very least in joint readiness exercises and local operations. For example, NATO just launched Operation Sea Guardian to help combat human trafficking in the Aegean and Greece begrudgingly sent a submarine. One would expect an eagerness to contribute to an operation that pertains so much to a local situation but the political will doesnt seem to be there.

---

To be fair Greece doesn't have enough in the bank to be able to rub two Drachma together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

To be fair Greece doesn't have enough in the bank to be able to rub two Drachma together.

---

This is true, which means that major reform is needed to cut it down. The Greek military is actually rather large, but doesnt seem to do much due to the financial crisis. Still, it brings a good amount of resentment from other allies because of it.

I doubt that anything other than that submarine works in the Greek Navy. Budget is high, because nationalists (that is the majority of the voters) will get a heart attack if conscription is cancelled or if we don't get the newest toys and because every Minister of Defense sees it as his duty to get bribed. We even imprisoned one, which is a record for Greece, no other politician has been imprisoned in recent memory.

Then I don't think that we are the most loyal NATO members. Orthodox solidarity is strong in our Medieval mindset and literally everyone, even the generals, will literally desert, if they have to fight with Russia. Our last interaction with NATO was during Kosovo war, when local officials vandalized road signals, successfully managing to direct the NATO mechanized divisions not to the Greek-Macedonian border, but to the Thessaloniki bazaar instead.

There is an interesting TV show called Occupied which deals with an EU energy crisis after a US withdrawal from NATO. A green party moves into power in Norway and stops all petroleum production. Russia moves in with EU blessing and invades Norway.
I guess some US officials saw that show - and has requested to station a 330 man US marine force in Norway (considered a strike force). As of October this year, the ruling government has said yes to this request. Additionally the US has upgraded their military storage here considerably the last few years. Some concerns considering the unwillingness to leave such "bases" (Guantanamo/Subic Bay) even if asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Perhaps he will be a steady supporter of NATO now that hes in office and that hes not the friend of the Kremlin that some in Russia hoped.

---

They still do:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7406866.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

They still do:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7406866.html

---

Well, his erratic nature might give them more reason to sweat than they might think now. We simply cannot know how Trump will actually govern. He might enter negotiations with Russia to iron things out but once things dont go completely his way will he stay the course? Who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I dont think you have been paying much attention. Post 9/11, the counter-terrorism bonds between the US and Russia were strengthened by intelligence sharing mainly. Obama cut down on NATO presence in Europe due to the sequester, even cancelled a missile defense shield plan in Central Europe that Russia opposed. I think you see it as NATO being the primary aggressor. I think its more about Putin keeping power through an "us versus them" mentality in Russia by constantly ensuring that the populace is mobilized against foreign threats, real or imagined. With the economy in Russia tanking (GDP growth in 2015 was -3.727%) Putin needs a distraction. He needed it in 1999 with the Second Chechen War, he needed it in 2008 with the war in Georgia, he needed it in 2014 with Ukraine, and when Ukraine wasnt going so hot he needed it in 2015 with his show of force in Syria. Dude just wants to keep power, thats why hes been castrating so many human rights groups by labeling them as foreign agents. Last month they labeled Memorial as a foreign agent, a group set up in 1989 to commemorate the victims of Stalinist terror. Dont get me wrong, there is blame to be had on both sides in this issue, but those who think that the Russians dont have a good amount of the blame are naive.

---

No it’s more that the US is overcommitting. Even if they pull back in some areas, Russia only spends about $65bn as opposed to the US’s $600bn. Russia cannot match the US in DoD contracts or even obtain the alliances the US has currently. With the economy in the US not even tanking, there is still an “us vs them” mentality that dictates its policies overseas. Nobody is neglecting Russia’s shadiness but the US has demonstrated imperial overstretch and failure as a world power time and time again. Naturally it’s the active world power that is subjected to most of the blame. Even with minor concessions these linchpins of American strategy pointed out are safe.

That can't change unless America declines to project beyond its coast.

That has never been an option in American strategy, not even during the 1760s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Also dont forget that just last year, half of the German air force was not operational. The European allies definitely need to spend more/better on defense, no doubt about it. But threatening the very essence of the alliance is not the way to do it.

---

Trump is a deal maker. He wants the European partners in NATO to pull a bigger share of the load and to reorganize things to make the NATO force structure and the like more of a fit with it's post USSR mission. So he starts out with an extreme position -- we may have to scrap it -- in order to get your attention and get you moving on negotiation -- it's called anchoring.

And would anything less truly motivate the NATO/EU members to get off the dime and actually make changes? It is not at though the USA hasn't wanted some changes on these issues for, oh, about half of my life as an adult....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

That can't change unless America declines to project beyond its coast.

That has never been an option in American strategy, not even during the 1760s.

---

You don't need to spend $600bn to project beyond the coast. Begs the question why China isn't demonized in the same manner when it spends about $200bn and projects its influence more than Russia does, with North Korea in its backyard.