2024-02-12 23:10:00
Londres (CNN) — Former President Donald Trump’s comments often resonate in an echo chamber of his own creation, a kind of vacuum that often deprives them of any global consequences. One might think this is white noise, rhetoric designed to project strength and rejection of the status quo, rather than an expression of real policy. It’s just Trump being Trump.
However, when the former president suggested this Saturday that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever it wants” with any NATO member that does not meet spending guidelines, the impact was serious.
Trump recalled what he said was a conversation with a “major” NATO ally – it was not clear who he was referring to or when the conversation took place – who, according to his account, refused to spend the equivalent of Recommended 2% of its GDP in defense. However, he said he wanted assurances from the United States that he would be protected if Russia attacked. Trump noted that he would not give such a guarantee, since the ally was “delinquent,” and Russian President Vladimir Putin should feel free to have his way.
Trump’s opinion on NATO has been known for years: he believes it is the epitome of everything he despises about America’s allies, who would take advantage of its strength without giving anything in return: a store loyalty club in which points are obtained without a proportional expense.
As with much foreign policy, the Republican candidate radically misunderstood the nature and purpose of this relationship. NATO is not a quota-based alliance: it is the largest military bloc in history, which was formed to confront the Soviet threat, and is based on the idea of collective defense whereby an attack against one is an attack against all, a principle enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty.
It is a purpose that deeply suits the United States: the White House invoked Article 5 after 9/11. And since the creation of NATO, American power has often been presented around the world as the expression of a consensus among dozens of countries. NATO helps reinforce the United States’ waning position as the only hyperpower. If this great alliance and its diplomatic and economic power are dispensed with, the United States will find itself quite alone on the world stage.
In short, the United States will almost certainly always spend far more on its military than anyone else, regardless of its allies. NATO gives it a global basis of legitimacy, support for the dollar and the post-Soviet hegemony on which it thrives.
Given Saturday’s misunderstanding, Trump’s comments come at a devastating time for Europe. The dishonest rump of the Republican Party that supports him is persistently trying to derail vital aid to Ukraine. If the desired $60 billion does not arrive, or is delayed much further, it will have an irrevocably damaging impact on Ukraine’s practical defenses on the front lines, political cohesion in Kyiv, and national morale.
The damage is already done. And it is Putin who benefits.
It remains a mystery why Trump feels so inexplicably tied to Putin, and wedded to his flattery, or even his success. It is an enigma that we will only understand with the passage of time. Is it a twisted attraction to a “bad guy,” an infatuation with Russia’s deeply patriarchal culture, or something more darkly tied to Trump’s own personal history?
This Saturday’s incendiary comments fuel the narrative of America being exploited, undervalued and, as a result, in global decline. Trump’s Republican Party feeds on this, perhaps unaware that it is a self-fulfilling loop of grievance. The more the United States complains about its allies and their miserable abandonment by NATO, and withdraws from it, the less powerful it is.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s insufferably bland Putin interview encouraged the projection of weakness: He was an easy, open ear for the Kremlin chief’s flimsy persecution arguments and laughable historical justification for invading a neighbor. weaker and non-threatening. The platform pointed out that there are parts of the United States that want to listen to Putin’s nonsense, and it allowed them to do so. He announced the likely radical change in relations with Russia of a second Trump term.
Although the real-world impact of Trump’s comments is still unclear, it could be catastrophic. European security depends on Ukraine’s success or, at the very least, its ability to contain and weaken Russia’s continued attacks.
If Moscow prevails, it could take years; Meanwhile, Putin managed to reorient his economy and society for wartime, and may consider it anathema to his control of power to stop beating the drums of conflict. Russian advances in Zaporizhzhia could lead to a move towards Kherson, then Mykolaiv and Odessa, putting Putin on the doorstep of NATO Romania.
But don’t expect Moscow to launch an all-out invasion of the largest military alliance in history. Russia will not suddenly bomb France. Putin prefers to goad, provoke and test the limits or disposition of his opponents. Is NATO ready to go to war with Moscow over the Russian-speaking parts of the Baltic state of Estonia? Or the small Norwegian island of Svalbard, partially inhabited by Russians? Would a small Russian provocation slowly reveal NATO’s disunity and reluctance to mobilize its populations for conflict in the same way that Russia has done?
Europe has lived for almost a decade with the possibility of facing the Russian threat alone. Trump’s first term sounded a loud horn in that regard. However, there is now the largest land war to hit Europe since the 1940s, heightening the danger.
The UK has recently shifted its broader rhetoric in recent weeks to suggest that the West is no longer in a post-war world, but a pre-war one. High-ranking British soldiers even considered the possibility of compulsory military service. Finland and Sweden urgently applied to join NATO. Germany’s Foreign Ministry responded to Trump’s comments with “one for all and all for one.” The president of the European Council, Charles Michel, criticized Trump’s “reckless statements.”
However, European defense has rarely prospered without the might of American support. Moscow, after its failed invasion of an unprepared neighbor, remains weak in comparison. It is not a monster capable of devastating Western Europe. It is far from the powerful military it was considered in 2021. But make no mistake: the lack of a guarantee of American support greatly undermines NATO’s effectiveness. It calls into question the cohesion of the alliance and, therefore, its existence.
Trump knows it. He is not simply saying that the United States will not help NATO allies who have not paid. He is saying that he would encourage Russia to attack, to invade, to inflict the horrors of Mariupol on America’s allies. Maybe it is noise, maybe he is aimed at egging on the faithful in front of his podium. But it was heard loudly, especially in European capitals and Moscow.
Part of Trump’s appeal to his supporters is his lack of presidential poise. But after the invasion of Ukraine two years ago, this is no longer a game of posturing. It is a moment that I hope the history books do not have to look back and analyze as if it had had serious consequences.
1707803494
#Trumps #incendiary #comments #NATO #send #chills #Europe #Analysis