Trump’s threat to defend only those NATO allies who pay enough for their defense makes no sense and reflects his fundamental misunderstanding of how NATO works.
Presented with the proposition you put forward, i.e. "you're either in or out...you can't be half in and half out," Trump gives every indication that his response would be, "OK, we're out." In light of this, the relevant question for anyone who values the Alliance isn’t whether Trump understands NATO. It’s whether European NATO understands Trump. If Europe gets Trump wrong, he’ll do what he wants, and Europe will be left to pick up the pieces. If they get him right, and act accordingly, he’ll still do pretty much what he wants, but is more likely to do so in a way that Europe can accommodate, and that NATO can survive.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea for continental Europe to better consolidate and increase their defense spending, given Russia’s aggression, but as Ivo notes, we are the only country to invoke article 5, and NATO answered the bell.
A huge part of the US’s global power lies in global power projection. Iraq and Afghanistan depended largely on bases in Germany and Turkey. Canada (via both NATO and NORAD) allows for the enormous aerial defensive umbrella that covers 49 US states. During the Cold War, missiles and bases placed in NATO nations played a key role in defeating the USSR- as well as territorial water access with our NATO allies. This is also doesn’t even begin to factor in the trillions NATO nations have and are spending on US weapons, which goes straight to US companies.
Excellent point. Trump thinks it’s all about what the US does for Allies but he doesn’t understand what Allies for the US. He questioned whether France or other allies would come to the defense of the US the other day. Of course, the only time NATO’s article 5 was invoked was after 9/11 and every country contribute to the defense of the United States and then in Afghanistan.
100% agreed. There’s far too much ground to cover here in a comment, so I’ll avoid a book length defense and go for the visceral: no, we don’t need Germany or France to defend the US, but how much larger would the military deaths have been in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria if we couldn’t airlift to Turkey and Germany? We alienate at our own peril.
Ivo writes, "Of course, the only time NATO’s article 5 was invoked was after 9/11 and every country contribute to the defense of the United States and then in Afghanistan."
All true, except that the EU forces were so weak that they couldn't really make that much of a contribution, and America still had to shoulder almost all of the load. EU participation in Afghanistan seemed like more of a PR exercise than a real alliance. The EU's heart was in the right place, but their money wasn't.
Saunders writes, "A huge part of the US’s global power lies in global power projection. Iraq and Afghanistan depended largely on bases in Germany and Turkey."
If the US succeeds in shifting it's focus to China, which will require withdrawing from never ending wars in Europe and the Middle East, bases in Germany and Turkey will be far less important.
We can contribute to that process by shifting our own thinking away from 20th century topics and towards the issue that will dominate the 21st century we now actually live in. China. China is the story of the 21st century.
Russia is yesterday's news. The Soviet Union collapsed. Putin's regime likely will too. Russia is an unraveling mafia state with a primitive political system. The primary focus of most Russian leaders is hiding the money they've stolen from the Russian people in off shore secret bank accounts. Mafia operations everywhere are parasitic. They feed and feed and feed on the host until they've harvested everything of value, and then they go looking for a new victim. Putin's mafia crime family will consume Russia until there's little left to steal.
I agree, the focus should be on China, not Russia. But it was Canadian warships that last transited the straights and challenged China, not the 7th fleet. And given the astronomical amount of investment China has committed to buying goodwill in Africa, and a post Vietnam-era of proxy conflicts between superpowers (or, US and other global powers like Russia and China) it would behoove us to remain on good terms with our allies to retain bases that allow for global access.
Furthermore, our power projection in South Korea and Japan depend on defense guarantees similar (though admittedly not identical) to the Budapest Memorandum we gave to Ukraine. If we break our promises as a nation on something as a guarantee of territorial integrity, why would any other nation feel their agreement with us is valid?
Lastly, the use of historical examples doesn’t equate to willful ignorance of today’s problems. It does give a useful source of data on how past conflicts have played out so we can factor it in to current policy…it’s not about fighting the last war, it’s about learning lessons from it.
Why shouldn't we be on good terms with our European friends? If long standing American policy is successful, the EU will be stronger, safer, more secure, more independent, and more in control of their own destiny. Everyone benefits, except for Putin.
Some in the EU may be upset at the moment during a transition period, but there's no reason why such tensions need to be permanent. Let us recall there were tensions during the first Trump administration too, and Biden patched them up in no time. That can happen again.
I hear your point about the Budapest Memorandum, but if America remains bogged down in never ending MidEast and European wars, we may not be in a position to effectively defend our friends in the Far East.
One thing we can learn from history is that it's not always wise to invest a lot of energy in people who aren't all that willing to defend themselves. It remains an open question as to whether the EU has the will to fight Russia if necessary.
As I see it, either America or Russia is going to convince the EU to take responsibility for it's own defense, and it's better that the Trump asshole does it than that the Putin asshole does.
It seems that way to me too. But not to the President. So the question is, how do we adapt the alliance in a way that will keep it intact. Ivo has some interesting ideas on that question in his new Foreign Policy article (link below). I’d say most of them are “two little too late” and that Europe needs to act far more quickly and aggressively. But at least he’s put something serious out there for the rest of us think about…for which I give him great credit.
I think your key points are extremely valid…whether it’s Trump or anyone else making these calls, it’s not someone who knows or cares about logic or details. It’s a triage situation, agreed, and the fallout from inaction or action (from Europe, NATO, or the US) could cause untold damage. In my opinion, this is the danger of appeasement, status quo, or aggression tactics with chaotic leaders (Trump and Putin) all have unknown outcomes. I don’t pretend to have answers- opinions sure- but it is scary to think the only constant variable in this equation is X=?.
I actually got a chance to read that, and agree, but would be curious to hear your thoughts re: all involved parties in the Budapest Memorandum as well as Minsk 1 & 2. Those seem to be a pretty clear signal in these conflicts ego and artillery are more powerful and paper and pen alone. Edit: (hence the need for tangible deterrence and enforcement, as you suggest)
Trump personalizes everything. With him it’s always “So, what have you done for me lately?”. He’s, of course, applying this to NATO. He actually doesn’t care about the past or about larger concepts of maintaining peace in a dangerous and complicated world.
If Trump succeeds in getting the EU to take more responsibility for defending their own continent, he will have made the world a safer place. This has been a longstanding goal of American policy, and Trump has advanced that agenda more than any previous president.
What you don't like about Trump's personality (agreed) is more of an asset than a liability in this particular case. This is proven by the fact that the polite, professional, patient dialog of previous American presidents going back decades consistently failed to wake the EU up. Trump's bull in the china shop method is working where the polite method didn't.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine already awakened the Europeans, although probably not as much as it should have.
Trump’s outrageous treatment of Zelensky and Ukraine during and after the Oval Office fiasco definitely marked a watershed moment for the Europeans. I see this as being a fortunate fluke. I’m certainly glad it’s happening. However I don’t think it was in any way an outcome planned by Trump. He tried to help himself (wanna get the Nobel Peace Prize) and his pal Putin. He ended up causing increased backing for Ukraine from Europe.
The best way that the EU can contribute to America, and the world at large, is to take full responsibility for the defense of their own continent. This would free American attention and resources to focus on the primary threat to freedom in the 21st century, China, the biggest dictatorship in world history, with twice as many people as the US and EU combined.
The EU can clearly afford to play this deterrent role in Europe, given that it's at least five times richer than Russia. Whether the EU has the insight and will to take on this responsibility is as yet unknown.
If they don't build a credible deterrent to Russia, then Ukraine may fall, and then the EU would face Russian troops on the Polish border, newly rearmed with confiscated Ukrainian equipment. Such an outcome would help further focus the EU on the necessity to get their act together.
Trump's foreign policy insight seems to be the understanding that the EU is never going to transcend being a dependent teenager until it is forced to by some crisis. It's better that Trump engineers this crisis now rather than that the Russians engineer it later.
A key issue right now seems to be that an asshole is required to kick over the longstanding complacent status quo in US/EU relations, but because Trump is such an authentic and compelling asshole, a great many commentators seem unable to focus on much of anything else, and thus important factors like China are being routinely ignored.
I’m quite sure Trump understands exactly how NATO works. The problem? He has leverage. Why does he have leverage? Because many NATO countries have spent the last decades foolishly investing in exclusively American arms and Defence products. That’s the leverage, as evidenced by him turning off the tech for everything that has been given to Ukraine in this this illegal Russian invasion.
Presented with the proposition you put forward, i.e. "you're either in or out...you can't be half in and half out," Trump gives every indication that his response would be, "OK, we're out." In light of this, the relevant question for anyone who values the Alliance isn’t whether Trump understands NATO. It’s whether European NATO understands Trump. If Europe gets Trump wrong, he’ll do what he wants, and Europe will be left to pick up the pieces. If they get him right, and act accordingly, he’ll still do pretty much what he wants, but is more likely to do so in a way that Europe can accommodate, and that NATO can survive.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea for continental Europe to better consolidate and increase their defense spending, given Russia’s aggression, but as Ivo notes, we are the only country to invoke article 5, and NATO answered the bell.
A huge part of the US’s global power lies in global power projection. Iraq and Afghanistan depended largely on bases in Germany and Turkey. Canada (via both NATO and NORAD) allows for the enormous aerial defensive umbrella that covers 49 US states. During the Cold War, missiles and bases placed in NATO nations played a key role in defeating the USSR- as well as territorial water access with our NATO allies. This is also doesn’t even begin to factor in the trillions NATO nations have and are spending on US weapons, which goes straight to US companies.
“All in” seems a pretty clear cut choice.
Excellent point. Trump thinks it’s all about what the US does for Allies but he doesn’t understand what Allies for the US. He questioned whether France or other allies would come to the defense of the US the other day. Of course, the only time NATO’s article 5 was invoked was after 9/11 and every country contribute to the defense of the United States and then in Afghanistan.
100% agreed. There’s far too much ground to cover here in a comment, so I’ll avoid a book length defense and go for the visceral: no, we don’t need Germany or France to defend the US, but how much larger would the military deaths have been in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria if we couldn’t airlift to Turkey and Germany? We alienate at our own peril.
Ivo writes, "Of course, the only time NATO’s article 5 was invoked was after 9/11 and every country contribute to the defense of the United States and then in Afghanistan."
All true, except that the EU forces were so weak that they couldn't really make that much of a contribution, and America still had to shoulder almost all of the load. EU participation in Afghanistan seemed like more of a PR exercise than a real alliance. The EU's heart was in the right place, but their money wasn't.
Saunders writes, "A huge part of the US’s global power lies in global power projection. Iraq and Afghanistan depended largely on bases in Germany and Turkey."
If the US succeeds in shifting it's focus to China, which will require withdrawing from never ending wars in Europe and the Middle East, bases in Germany and Turkey will be far less important.
We can contribute to that process by shifting our own thinking away from 20th century topics and towards the issue that will dominate the 21st century we now actually live in. China. China is the story of the 21st century.
Russia is yesterday's news. The Soviet Union collapsed. Putin's regime likely will too. Russia is an unraveling mafia state with a primitive political system. The primary focus of most Russian leaders is hiding the money they've stolen from the Russian people in off shore secret bank accounts. Mafia operations everywhere are parasitic. They feed and feed and feed on the host until they've harvested everything of value, and then they go looking for a new victim. Putin's mafia crime family will consume Russia until there's little left to steal.
I agree, the focus should be on China, not Russia. But it was Canadian warships that last transited the straights and challenged China, not the 7th fleet. And given the astronomical amount of investment China has committed to buying goodwill in Africa, and a post Vietnam-era of proxy conflicts between superpowers (or, US and other global powers like Russia and China) it would behoove us to remain on good terms with our allies to retain bases that allow for global access.
Furthermore, our power projection in South Korea and Japan depend on defense guarantees similar (though admittedly not identical) to the Budapest Memorandum we gave to Ukraine. If we break our promises as a nation on something as a guarantee of territorial integrity, why would any other nation feel their agreement with us is valid?
Lastly, the use of historical examples doesn’t equate to willful ignorance of today’s problems. It does give a useful source of data on how past conflicts have played out so we can factor it in to current policy…it’s not about fighting the last war, it’s about learning lessons from it.
Hi Phil, thanks for your reply.
Why shouldn't we be on good terms with our European friends? If long standing American policy is successful, the EU will be stronger, safer, more secure, more independent, and more in control of their own destiny. Everyone benefits, except for Putin.
Some in the EU may be upset at the moment during a transition period, but there's no reason why such tensions need to be permanent. Let us recall there were tensions during the first Trump administration too, and Biden patched them up in no time. That can happen again.
I hear your point about the Budapest Memorandum, but if America remains bogged down in never ending MidEast and European wars, we may not be in a position to effectively defend our friends in the Far East.
One thing we can learn from history is that it's not always wise to invest a lot of energy in people who aren't all that willing to defend themselves. It remains an open question as to whether the EU has the will to fight Russia if necessary.
As I see it, either America or Russia is going to convince the EU to take responsibility for it's own defense, and it's better that the Trump asshole does it than that the Putin asshole does.
It seems that way to me too. But not to the President. So the question is, how do we adapt the alliance in a way that will keep it intact. Ivo has some interesting ideas on that question in his new Foreign Policy article (link below). I’d say most of them are “two little too late” and that Europe needs to act far more quickly and aggressively. But at least he’s put something serious out there for the rest of us think about…for which I give him great credit.
I think your key points are extremely valid…whether it’s Trump or anyone else making these calls, it’s not someone who knows or cares about logic or details. It’s a triage situation, agreed, and the fallout from inaction or action (from Europe, NATO, or the US) could cause untold damage. In my opinion, this is the danger of appeasement, status quo, or aggression tactics with chaotic leaders (Trump and Putin) all have unknown outcomes. I don’t pretend to have answers- opinions sure- but it is scary to think the only constant variable in this equation is X=?.
Completely agree. See my argument in this Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/03/07/ukraine-russia-nato-europe-security-defense/?utm_content=gifting&tpcc=gifting_article&gifting_article=dWtyYWluZS1ydXNzaWEtbmF0by1ldXJvcGUtc2VjdXJpdHktZGVmZW5zZQ==&pid=CW3657086
I actually got a chance to read that, and agree, but would be curious to hear your thoughts re: all involved parties in the Budapest Memorandum as well as Minsk 1 & 2. Those seem to be a pretty clear signal in these conflicts ego and artillery are more powerful and paper and pen alone. Edit: (hence the need for tangible deterrence and enforcement, as you suggest)
Trump personalizes everything. With him it’s always “So, what have you done for me lately?”. He’s, of course, applying this to NATO. He actually doesn’t care about the past or about larger concepts of maintaining peace in a dangerous and complicated world.
If Trump succeeds in getting the EU to take more responsibility for defending their own continent, he will have made the world a safer place. This has been a longstanding goal of American policy, and Trump has advanced that agenda more than any previous president.
What you don't like about Trump's personality (agreed) is more of an asset than a liability in this particular case. This is proven by the fact that the polite, professional, patient dialog of previous American presidents going back decades consistently failed to wake the EU up. Trump's bull in the china shop method is working where the polite method didn't.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine already awakened the Europeans, although probably not as much as it should have.
Trump’s outrageous treatment of Zelensky and Ukraine during and after the Oval Office fiasco definitely marked a watershed moment for the Europeans. I see this as being a fortunate fluke. I’m certainly glad it’s happening. However I don’t think it was in any way an outcome planned by Trump. He tried to help himself (wanna get the Nobel Peace Prize) and his pal Putin. He ended up causing increased backing for Ukraine from Europe.
You write, "He ended up causing increased backing for Ukraine from Europe."
That's what matters to me. He's getting the job done.
The best way that the EU can contribute to America, and the world at large, is to take full responsibility for the defense of their own continent. This would free American attention and resources to focus on the primary threat to freedom in the 21st century, China, the biggest dictatorship in world history, with twice as many people as the US and EU combined.
The EU can clearly afford to play this deterrent role in Europe, given that it's at least five times richer than Russia. Whether the EU has the insight and will to take on this responsibility is as yet unknown.
If they don't build a credible deterrent to Russia, then Ukraine may fall, and then the EU would face Russian troops on the Polish border, newly rearmed with confiscated Ukrainian equipment. Such an outcome would help further focus the EU on the necessity to get their act together.
Trump's foreign policy insight seems to be the understanding that the EU is never going to transcend being a dependent teenager until it is forced to by some crisis. It's better that Trump engineers this crisis now rather than that the Russians engineer it later.
A key issue right now seems to be that an asshole is required to kick over the longstanding complacent status quo in US/EU relations, but because Trump is such an authentic and compelling asshole, a great many commentators seem unable to focus on much of anything else, and thus important factors like China are being routinely ignored.
Just about everything.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ricknoz/p/how-many-pro-russia-acts-make-trump?r=ukln1&utm_medium=ios
I’m quite sure Trump understands exactly how NATO works. The problem? He has leverage. Why does he have leverage? Because many NATO countries have spent the last decades foolishly investing in exclusively American arms and Defence products. That’s the leverage, as evidenced by him turning off the tech for everything that has been given to Ukraine in this this illegal Russian invasion.
Every single picture of this pumpkin spice latte is mean and hateful looking. Imma judge this book by its cover. 🤬