Donald Trump’s hostility towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, is no longer satisfied by simple reprimands addressed to its member countries. Weakening the Atlantic alliance is no longer enough for him. Questioning it either.
Since everything is clearly allowed on the battlefield of the Republican nomination, Donald Trump is now going for a direct disavowal of NATO and, above all, of its doctrine and primary mission. A wide open door for the imperialist aims of Vladimir Putin. And delivered just days before the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The provocative gesture could not be more indecent.
Donald Trump is not at his first outing to accuse NATO members of not investing enough to increase their military arsenal. Throughout his disturbing charm operation with the Russian dictator, the former American president has repeatedly shown himself to be far too lax towards his expansionist desires. But all of this was before February 24, 2022. Before Vladimir Putin’s insatiable quest to expand a new Russian empire led to an attempted full and brutal invasion of neighboring Ukraine. Before the reason for NATO, created to block the path of the former USSR, ceased to become conceptual and became very real again.
Whatever. Donald Trump now boasts of having threatened, when he was president, a counterpart of a NATO ally not to defend him if he were one day the target of a Russian offensive. “You haven’t paid?” Are you a delinquent? […] No, I wouldn’t protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever they want. » An alarming quasi-blank check. The doubts of Western leaders surrounding the true cause of the death of Russian opponent Alexeï Navalny, and the “responsibility” attributed to the regime say everything about the danger of leaving the field open to Vladimir Putin.
For a long time, American governments – Democrats and Republicans alike – have criticized NATO countries for underfunding their armies. The United States is still the biggest military spender in the alliance. Eleven member countries reached the 2% of GDP target last year, set to respond to the first Russian invasion of Crimea. Together, the 31 states have spent record sums, breathing new life into the alliance in response to the war in Ukraine — the very one that Donald Trump proposes to resolve not with a negotiated peace agreement, but with capitulation from Kiev.
What Donald Trump obviously does not say is that Article 5 of NATO which he rejects today (ensuring the defense of one by the whole group) was only invoked only once… to support the United States following September 11, 2001. The poor businessman also avoids the dramatic economic consequences that the global instability he advocates would have even in North America. But the isolationist reflex, pushed to the extreme under his leadership, is a much better argument with the new Republican electorate than the truth.
His rhetoric may not materialize. A new law, adopted in December by Congress, requires the agreement of both chambers for a president to unilaterally leave NATO. During Trump’s tenure in the White House, the deployment of American troops to alliance exercises remained stable. His threat to reduce them did not have time to be carried out.
The simple message sent last week to Vladimir Putin and the doubt thus sown, however, alone deal a terrible blow to NATO’s ascendancy. If the most powerful army in the alliance no longer takes part in a possible response, what will be its deterrent effect? Is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin maintains this false friendship with Donald Trump who, 20 years ago, wrote in his book (The America We Deserve) that European conflicts “are not worth American lives” and that withdrawing from them would allow the United States “to save millions of dollars per year”?
The nervousness is palpable on the Old Continent. But Canada is not left out, also counting Russia among its northern neighbors. The threat is not as great as it could be for the Baltic countries, but Moscow and its Chinese ally also have the Arctic in their sights. However, Canada’s defense budgets remain well below the NATO target (at 1.38% of GDP, bogging down on the 25e rank).
Ottawa also shares bilateral command of NORAD with Washington. And on this front it is also criticized for insufficient investments. In the current budgetary context, the necessary catch-up of recent decades is out of reach. Even the conservative Pierre Poilievre is not committed to it.
Which heralds, if the inevitable election of Donald Trump is confirmed, one more dispute on the already loaded menu of dissensions between Washington and Ottawa.