"One of the presidents of a big country
stood up and said, 'Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by
Russia, will you protect us?'"
"I said: 'You didn’t pay? You're delinquent?'" former President Donald Trump boasted of his
conversations with NATO allies at a campaign rally on Saturday. "'No, I
would not protect you,'" he continued. "In fact, I would encourage
[Russia] to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to
pay your bills."
Trump's remarks followed his longstanding pattern of mischaracterizing NATO members' defense spending commitment—a target of 2 percent of GDP that most members do not hit—as a "bill" to be paid to the U.S. But his invitation of Russian aggression went beyond past rhetoric on this topic and raised widespread alarm in European capitals and Washington alike.
The candidate's framing is typically ill-considered. But the rethinking of burden shifting
his comments prompted is good—overdue, actually. Here's what this shift
should look like, regardless of Trump's policy whims and political
fortunes.
Reality sets in
- Though NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg claimed to "expect that
regardless of who wins the presidential election, the U.S. will remain a
strong and committed NATO ally," other leaders across Europe recognized
the continent's need to defend itself. [BBC / Adam Durbin]
- Trump's comments "make more urgent Europe's nascent efforts to
'develop its strategic autonomy and invest in its defense,'" said
European Council President Charles Michel.
- "Europe may soon have no choice but to defend itself," wrote
German MP Norbert Röttgen. "Anything else would be capitulation and
giving up on ourselves." [NYT / David E. Sanger]
- "The European Union, France, and Poland must become strong and ready to defend their own borders," said Polish PM Donald Tusk.
- French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of making "Europe a
security and defense power complementary to NATO, the European pillar of
the Atlantic alliance." [The Guardian / Daniel Sabbagh]
- Along similar lines, an editorial from FT made a rueful but sobered
case for NATO Europe learning "how to plan for war without America":
- "The one admirable thing about Trump's message was its clarity. It
is an unambiguous signal to Europeans that they must start preparing to
protect their continent's security without U.S. involvement."
- "That requires a European pillar within NATO with Europeans able
to provide the crucial military assets like heavy lift and intelligence
that only the U.S. currently possesses."
- "Europeans cannot count on" a reversal and/or election loss by
Trump. "They must prepare for a new world, in which they take care of
their own security." [FT / The Editorial Board]
The way forward
- The FT piece makes a case that "needed to have been made even if
Trump hadn't ignorantly made NATO sound like a protection
racket," argued DEFP Director of Grand Strategy Rajan Menon. [X]
- Menon himself has made the case for burden shifting in far greater detail in a DEFP explainer, "Reconfiguring NATO." Key points:
- NATO should be reconfigured to shift the primary responsibility
for defending Europe to Europeans. This far-reaching change is
appropriate given Europe’s transformed security environment.
- Reducing or ending the American military presence in Europe should
not depend on whether European governments implement burden shifting;
indeed U.S. force reductions are a prerequisite for burden shifting.
- Europe has the economic and technological resources needed to assume the principal responsibility for its own defense.
- Burden shifting is not merely about increased European defense
spending; it also requires better military coordination among European
states.
- Russia's attack on Ukraine has revealed the weaknesses of the
Russian military, which makes burden shifting even more appropriate. [DEFP / Menon]
| | |