A Trump-led Withdrawal from NATO

Written By: - Date published: 7:30 am, February 13th, 2024 - 37 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, International, us politics, war - Tags:

Just as he did in 2017, Trump is clear in 2023 that the United States should withdraw from NATO.

Trump has a reasonable shot at winning the United States Presidential elections in November, and with a likely stronger Republican hold on the Senate he really can make good on it.

So what would actually happen? We now know what the world looks like when the United States withdraws or chooses not to put troops on the ground: first it looks like Ukraine, and then at the end it looks like Afghanistan. So this is a threat affecting tens of millions of lives that is real already. 

Let’s start with the European ability to defend itself without the United States.

Some member countries will adopt a “wait and see” approach focused on persuading the United States to return to NATO. They would offer concessions that were previously unthinkable before, from trade to banking to i.p. protection to tax to energy. That is the bargaining approach to crisis, with the unfortunate message for transatlantic relations that a threat to abandon NATO might actually yield some results. I would expect countries that would take this position would include the United Kingdom, Ireland, and frontline countries Poland, Germany, and Moldova.

A scenario in which Russia foments civil unrest in Kaliningrad which then spills over into Estonia would be a quandary because many NATO members would struggle to agree to invoke the principle of collective defence under Article 5 in this grey-zone scenario (although it close-to replicates how it went in Ukraine). Instead one would expect Article 4 to be invoked which requires only consultations in case the security or independence of a NATO member state is threatened – paired with doubling down on the sanctions against Russia already in place.

Without U.S. security guarantees, the credibility of Article 5 and the mutual defence commitment gets more questionable.

Now let’s push it a bit harder, into a post-Trump re-election scenario: Russia decides that Poland needs to be directly punished for supplying Ukraine with arms and all other kinds of support. Poland is targeted with missiles, but not shot at. Very similar to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Once US missile and nuclear assets are withdrawn, Europe is exposed. Europe would likely remain vulnerable for years to come in such a scenario.

The question then is who would fill the deterrent defence gap in Europe, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown clearly that the whole of Europe has relied on the United States military for decades and has not prepared to be independent of the United States at all. Germany will not be able to develop nuclear weapons due to domestic opposition to nuclear anything. The United Kingdom and France could expand their nuclear arsenal and reach, but that takes time and success with the French to do this is by no means assured even after the Franco-German Aachen Treaty of 2019. Nuclear weapons are not likely to proliferate in Europe for some time if at all, and only if the whole of Europe is prepared to pay for them. That would be great if Russia and China were prepared to agree to a whole new non-proliferation treaty and yet have no motivation to do so.

The French would prefer a new E.U.-centred collective defence structure, heading towards a stronger E.U. The U.K. even now outside the EU would likely presume it would have far stronger post-NATO influence given its significant military manufacturing and servicing capabilities and won’t just sign up to any old post-US NATO. Many NATO countries would oppose strong UK redesign but particularly Turkey, Serbia, Hungary, and the Scandinavian bloc. Like other major international agreements Trump pulled out of, it’s more likely that the command structure of NATO would stay in place, with an opt-in clause for the US to return. NATO is unlikely to ever be reinvented.

European nations have had plenty of time to sustain their public about the security and defence of Europe. They have been warned both by the US and by Russia about what threats to their security are growing. Even now, military production in France and Germany is woefully short of being able to supply Ukraine with what it needs despite nearly two years of war and material commitments.

As we all must do, Europe needs to think the unthinkable. If the NATO command structure were to be dismantled, troops withdrawn, and missiles shipped back homeside, remaining NATO members would immediately have to provide alternatives. Some like Scandinavian countries are prepared. Most others aren’t.

European countries should also make a concerted effort to establish stronger diplomatic ties with Belarus. This would go a long way to reassuring Eastern European member states. Others like Spain and Portugal will not feel the threat of invasion nor the reason to collectively support a NATO replacement. Diverging threat perceptions – even after the Russian invasion – are still clear across Europe as it is. Serbia, Hungary and Turkey will likely find reasons to establish good workarounds with Russia even now.

There would need to be a new, smaller version of NATO that has a bilaterial defence pact with Europe and the United States. The United States may find, for example, that it still needs the EU to contain China and Russia with trade sanctions. It may also find that it still needs Canada and Denmark to shore up the Arctic as a front of potential defence. It may have to figure out for itself whether it is as independent from the rest of the world as it thinks it is. It would also freshen the air for new thinking about the real necessity of strong military alignments across the entire northern hemisphere. It would also provide a massive opening for a reassessment about the likelihood of further invasions by countries other than Russia, and the real impact of military invasion without near-automatic US protection.

We haven’t even got started on whether the US would break out of AUKUS as well, but we need to prepare for that as well here.

A world without the default US military protection is the very hard thinking that must be prepared for in a Trump-re-elected United States of America. 

37 comments on “A Trump-led Withdrawal from NATO ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mikesh 1
    13 February 2024 at 11:16 am

    It is more likely Europeans would seek a new friendly relationship with Russia, similar to that which was recently, until foolishly abandoned, enjoyed by Finland. They might well seek to include Russia in the EU, perhaps bringing in Ukraine as well.

    • Sanctuary 1.1
      13 February 2024 at 12:28 pm

      Poland is spending 4% of it's GDP on defense and creating a huge army in anticipation of your Russian "friendliness".

      • mikesh 1.1.1
        13 February 2024 at 1:07 pm

        Prophylaxis, probably, rather than anticipation. I don't see Poland attacking Russia any time soon, despite any lack of "friendliness" on Russia's part.

    • joe90 1.2
      13 February 2024 at 12:36 pm

      Russian friendship.

      /

  2. adam 2
    13 February 2024 at 11:41 am

    No matter who wins in the USA, this retreat from the world is going to carry on. Biden has carried it out as much as trump did. Albeit without the antagonism, and hate speech. I can't see this retreat stopping anytime soon, for any reason.

    One point on Europe, and one to keep an eye on to really stop Russia is Poland. The Polish military are no slugs, and they have seen what has been happening in Ukraine.

    Finally, not sure Turkey are part of Europe under Erdoğan, as it would appear they have their own agenda.

  3. eE.Burke 3
    13 February 2024 at 11:43 am

    I believe the point OMB is making is that virtually none of the members of NATO other than the US meet either the financial commitments they signed on to or the development and maintenance of their defense capabilities.

    The net result of that is that the US gets the thankless task of picking up the tab and having to tip in vast resources to compensate for the recalcitrance of people who should know better. The US has kept a standing army of ~100,000 in Europe for eighty years – thats the price of peace in Europe. Compare that to the total personnel of Australia ~57,000 and New Zealand ~9,000.

    He has exactly the same beef with the UN which would collapse instantly if the long suffering American taxpayers stopped underwriting it.

    The real disgrace is the successive governments of NATO countries not living up to their own commitments and being willing to live comfortably on the US dime. Good on OMB for calling em on it.

    waits for the pointless debate to start about how dare the evil yankees reverse colonise Europe

    • joe90 3.1
      13 February 2024 at 12:11 pm

      I believe the point OMB is making is that virtually none of the members of NATO other than the US meet either the financial commitments they signed on to or the development and maintenance of their defense capabilities.

      Arse.

      Estonia (2.73%), Lithuania (2.54%), Finland (2.45%), Romania (2.44%), Hungary (2.43%) and Latvia (2.07%) are all exceeding the alliance's guideline for defence expenditure.

      Poland is the alliance's biggest spender as a share of GDP, contributing 3.90%, spending even more than the US (3.49%) in second and Greece (3.01%) the next closest.

      The nations falling short of the alliance's target are France (1.90%), Montenegro (1.87%), North Macedonia (1.87%), Bulgaria (1.84%), Croatia (1.79%), Albania (1.76%), Netherlands (1.70%), Norway (1.67%), Denmark (1.65%), Germany (1.57%), Czech Republic (1.50%), Portugal (1.48%), Italy (1.46%), Canada (1.38%), Slovenia (1.35%), Turkey (1.31%), Spain (1.26%), Belgium (1.13%) and Luxembourg (0.72%).

      https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence

    • mikesh 3.2
      13 February 2024 at 1:17 pm

      The US has kept a standing army of ~100,000 in Europe for eighty years – thats the price of peace in Europe.

      How beneficent of them.

      I trust you don't mind a bit of sarcasm, now and then.

    • Michael P 3.3
      13 February 2024 at 4:28 pm

      The 2% of GDP commitment was / is a guideline not a signed up to requirement.

      Regardless, 11 out of 31 countries are at 2% or above now, which is somewhat more than "…virtually none…".

      That number of countries is expected to rise significantly this year. (Probably mainly due to Russian aggression and countries needing to re-arm after donating weapons and equipment to Ukraine.)

      As an aside, The US is way down the list of NATO countries when it comes to aid to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP.

      NATO countries have spent USD120 billion over the last two years on US weapons and equipment. I can't imagine the US risking potential loss of revenues and jobs.

      But probably most importantly is that Trump craps on about lots of things he's gonna do. Doesn't mean he ends up doing most of them (eg – immediately repealing Obamacare, Building the wall and making Mexico pay for it, etc). He's probably just vote chasing.

      Congress is or has passed a law that prevents a president from withdrawing from NATO without 2/3 support in congress so unlikely he will be able to even if he wanted too.

    • SPC 3.4
      13 February 2024 at 11:24 pm

      The USA promised 0.7% GDP foreign aid back in the 1970's – so did we by the way.

      The USA would not like to lose its UNSC veto, it could hardly sit on the UNSC without paying its contribution – nor would the UN remain in New York.

      Leaving the UN would either make the nation a pariah, as it would continue without the USA, or they would seek to form a rival body.

  4. Sanctuary 4
    13 February 2024 at 12:41 pm

    One thing no one considers is it suited US interests post-USSR to keep Europe dependent on US power for it's security. The United States hardly insisted on the NATO 2% target, and anyway collective European spending on defense is about 50% of the US spending even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    A reneging on the commitment to defend Europe is a lose-lose for the United States. Either Russia – a grossly corrupt gangster petrostate run by a dictator with a huge chip on his shoulder and a messianic vision that is utterly opposed to democracy and freedom – will gain massive influence in Europe at US expense or the Europeans will simply cease to rely on the USA and go their way – with knock effects in foreign policy. Both outcomes would severely weaken US power and influence.

    Additionally, the withdrawl of US support for NATO would make a general European war between Russia and rump NATO powers almost inevitable should Ukraine be overrun, since Putin's bloodthirsty irredentism won't be slaked by absorbing Ukraine into Russia – his eyes will swivel to the Baltic states and even Finland next. That raises the question – would public opinion let NZ stand aside as a neutral if the UK got involved in a huge and just war with Russia over, say, protecting the Baltic states?

    Finally, a general reealisation that the US can't be relied on anymore will trigger a massive proliferation of nuclear weapons, since states that previously felt secure under the US nuclear umbrella will develop their own nuclear weapons as the final guarantor of their sovereignty.

    • roblogic 4.1
      14 February 2024 at 12:01 am

      Like most dictators, Putin ^needs^ this war to keep his people in a state of crisis and unable to question his regime.

      Trump wants to emulate Putin and Kim Jong-Un. But he needs an easier war, probably Venezuela

  5. mikesh 5
    13 February 2024 at 1:49 pm

    Additionally, the withdrawl of US support for NATO would make a general European war between Russia and rump NATO powers almost inevitable should Ukraine be overrun,

    With no more proxy wars to be fought against NATO, I would think it more likely peace would reign throughout the region.

    would public opinion let NZ stand aside as a neutral if the UK got involved in a huge and just (sic) war with Russia over, say, protecting the Baltic states?

    I would hope so. However I don't really see anyone starting a war against Russia in the event of NATO's disestablishment. And I don't see Russia having any interest in counties beyond the two seas.

  6. joe90 6
    13 February 2024 at 2:02 pm

    , I would think it more likely peace would reign throughout the region.

    Pax Europaea.

    NATO, the EEC and the EU have brought he longest period of continuous peace to Western Europe since Pax Romana.

    • mikesh 6.1
      13 February 2024 at 4:57 pm

      NATO, the EEC and the EU have brought he longest period of continuous peace to Western Europe since Pax Romana.

      It probably would have happened anyway, even without the assistance of the EEC, the EU, and NATO.

      • joe90 6.1.1
        13 February 2024 at 6:08 pm

        And the Ukrainian Anti-Soviet resistance, the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, conflicts in Cyprus, the Greek civil war, multiple conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, two Chechen wars, conflicts in Dagestan, Georgia, Albania, Transnistria, Ukraine, Donbass, Crimea and Nagorno-Karabakh.

        Did they just happen, too?

        • mikesh 6.1.1.1
          13 February 2024 at 6:20 pm

          Did they just happen, too?

          Sure. Lots of wars all over the place. Africa, the Middle East, South America, China.

    • Francesca 6.2
      13 February 2024 at 6:17 pm

      While dishing out a fair bit of murder and mayhem to other parts of the world

      Nice folk!

  7. KJT 7
    13 February 2024 at 5:36 pm

    How the USA does social spending. Constant war!

    Their economy would collapse without it.

    Not to mention what they would do with all their angry young unemployed, if not for the army?

    Ironically the worlds largest "Socialist" State run enterprise, is the US military!

    Imagine if all that effort and capital was used to reduce poverty and increase social capital in the USA and the world, instead of bombing children?

    • roblogic 7.1
      14 February 2024 at 12:08 am

      The behaviour of bloodthirsty empires, and the vampire squid of global capitalism, calls to mind a few verses of Revelation ch. 17

      Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. The name written on her forehead was a mystery:

      Babylon the great
      The mother of prostitutes
      And of the abominations of the earth.

      (this is not a critique of prostitutes per se, but of the Babylon system in which we live)

      • SPC 7.1.1
        14 February 2024 at 12:29 am

        Religious symbolism analysis alert …

        Every empire centre's the capital coinage of the trade system on itself and every nation subject to its embrace is an exploited client/vassal/cash cow.

        The nations themselves are not truly bound to the imperial cult and wait for the time to demonstrate faithlessness by returning to their own sovereignty.

        This can either be done collectively by rising up together, or waiting for the empire to decline and fall of its own accord, as they have done in the past.

        The narrative goes on later …

        … however those whose faith was/is based on a national identity are inclined to conclude that such events are acts of God to enable “restoration” (OT model and thus for the church – the redeemed world).

  8. Jh 8
    13 February 2024 at 5:50 pm

    For the US to pull out of NATO, doesnt that require 2/3rd of the house to vote in favour?

  9. SPC 9
    13 February 2024 at 11:18 pm

    The related matter is how the "PNAC state" still has credibility as a security leader, after what it did in the ME – regime change in Iraq facilitating the rise of Islamic State, two failed states in Libya and Syria, leaving the dominant regional power Iran operating a war by proxy via armed non state actors (Hizbollah, Iraqi Shia militias and Houthi – thus Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen are, or might well also become failed states).

    Regardless of Trump (remember both he and Biden walked away from the women of Afghanistan), there is cause for NATO to think of Europe sans USA. And for Oz/us and India – ASEAN – Japan-Korea to think European NATO+.

    The USA has emboldened a Russian/Iranian/China axis of would be regional hegemons – they need to be contained, whether the USA goes isolationist, or not.

    Being dependent on the USA means handing them leadership when they their competence is often questionable.

    We should have real concern of them blundering into a Ukraine style event with China – their talk of democracy in Hong Kong incited the crackdown and now they moved onto Taiwan.

    Our region requires peace on the Korean peninsular, an agreement over Taiwan as an autonomous region within China and Chinese recognition of the international territorial borders and 200 mile economic zones of ASEAN nations in the South China sea. All 3 are UN matters … and there is no reason to expect successful American diplomatic leadership.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/12/japan-rahm-emanuel-china-military/

  10. Mike the Lefty 10
    14 February 2024 at 5:35 am

    Did I not hear Trump saying on television a couple of nights ago that Europe "deserved" to be attacked by Russia?

    I might not have heard it in context but it certainly filled with me dread.

    What kind of nutjob are the Americans supporting for re-election?

    • mikesh 10.1
      14 February 2024 at 9:08 am

      that Europe "deserved" to be attacked by Russia?

      Given that they are supporting Uncle Sam and his evil empire they probably do deserve to be attacked by Russia. Still, I wouldn't want to see that happen, and it probably won't.

      • joe90 10.1.1
        14 February 2024 at 1:19 pm

        they probably do deserve to be attacked by Russia.

        And the seven-year-old girl from Bucha whose exhumed body was found to contain traces of semen believed to belong to several different men?

        Did she deserve to be attacked by Russia?

        • mikesh 10.1.1.1
          14 February 2024 at 1:43 pm

          Did she deserve to be attacked by Russia?

          You are quite right to ask that. At seven years of age she could hardly be considered a supporter of Uncle Sam.

          Don't ask silly out of context questions.

          • joe90 10.1.1.1.1
            14 February 2024 at 6:11 pm

            she could hardly be considered a supporter of Uncle Sam.

            But the folk whose bodies were left strewn in the streets of Bucha after the Russian execution spree in 2022?

            They were likely supporters of Uncle Sam so they deserved to be attacked by Russia, right sport.

            /

            • mikesh 10.1.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2024 at 8:25 am

              What about this, what about that, What about the other. Is that the only logic you know?

  11. Barfly 11
    14 February 2024 at 11:05 am

    Are you taking the piss?

    A scenario in which Russia foments civil unrest in Kaliningrad which then spills over into Estonia

    Kalingrad borders Lithuania and Poland it's a long swim to Estonia

    Many NATO countries would oppose strong UK redesign but particularly Turkey, Serbia, Hungary, and the Scandinavian bloc

    Serbia isn't in NATO

    Some like Scandinavian countries are prepared. Most others aren’t.

    Poland is acquiring

    !000 Soth Korean K2 Black Panther Tanks

    250 M1A2 Abrams Tanks

    1400 Borsuk IFV"S

    486 HIMARS rocket launchers

    690 K9A1 Thunder self-propelled 155mm howitzers

    96 Apache attack helicopters

    32 F35's

    An extra 32 F16';s to go with the 48 they already have

    There's probably more but that's all I can think of ATM

    I consider this is unlike you in terms of accuracy so I was honestly wondering if you were taking the piss?

  12. Adrian 12
    14 February 2024 at 12:11 pm

    Consider that the US owns a large portion of European productive capacity, from Ford, GM and a huge amount of IT concerns, walking away from Europe would collapse the US economy with all the ensuing chaos that would entail. The comment that it doesn’t do enough for its poor is fair but also consider that the military employs, trains and educates a huge number of the potential unemployed poor. Walking away makes no sense at all, or about as much as Brexit for the UK.