context
Former US President Trump questions the duty of assistance in NATO. This is contractually stipulated, but very vague – say experts. As US President he could weaken the alliance. He had done that before too.
According to surveys, Donald Trump has a realistic chance of making it back into the White House as president. Trump recently gave a foretaste of what this could mean in terms of global politics when he tied the NATO member states’ obligation to provide assistance to their defense spending.
NATO countries that do not meet their financial obligations can no longer expect the USA to come to their aid in the event of an attack, he signaled. And: He would then even recommend that Russia “do whatever the hell they want to do,” said Trump at a campaign event in South Carolina.
Now the question arises: If Trump were to become president again, could he actually abandon the other NATO countries after a possible Russian attack?
The USA does not have to provide assistance under the treaty
The security experts Claudia Major and Stefanie Babst give a clear answer: “Yes, he can do that.” With view on passage of the NATO treaty; Article 5 explains Major – she is head of the security policy research group at the Science and Politics Foundation (SWP) – the treaty does not explicitly state that the duty to provide assistance also includes military assistance. The vague wording of the article includes everything “from a telegram of sympathy to a tank division.” There is no obligation to intervene militarily.
Actually says Article 5 of the NATO Treaty merely that “an armed attack against one or more (parties) in Europe or North America will be viewed as an attack against them all.” The member states therefore provide assistance “immediately for themselves and in cooperation with the other parties” – including the use of armed force. The crux of the matter: The assistance must therefore be provided within a framework that is “considered necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” Babst also confirms that what exactly needs to be done is not precisely defined.
She says: “We basically only have one concrete precedent to base this on. That was the activation of Article Five after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.” The obligation to provide assistance mentioned in the contract could in practice be a right to overfly, Babst continues. But it could also be military forces or the passing on of intelligence information.
Understanding of military assistance established
In purely contractual terms, Trump cannot be obliged to provide military assistance, says security expert Major. Nevertheless, in recent years the understanding has become established that the duty to provide assistance is understood to mean military assistance.
“We can talk about NATO as an institutional legal organization. But what is much more important is the political-psychological dimension,” says Major. Because with statements like this, Trump is undermining NATO’s deterrence and its strength as the largest defense organization. The strength of the military alliance is the mutual trust between the 31 member states. If this trust is shaken, the deterrent effect will also be weakened.
That’s enough to weaken NATO’s deterrent effect. Trump has actually already done that.
credibility NATO’s most important currency
This is also confirmed by Babst, who was employed in various positions within NATO for more than 20 years. She explains in conversation with tagesschau.de, NATO’s most important political currency is its credibility. So if Trump sows doubts about this and suggests that the USA is not prepared to fulfill its obligation to provide assistance in an emergency, then he would seriously damage both political and military credibility.
In practice, this weakening does not necessarily have to be accompanied by the USA leaving NATO, explains Major. Since December, this has not been so easy within the USA – because the Biden government has secured itself with a law. Accordingly, if Trump were to become President of the USA again, he would have to “inform the Senate and the House of Representatives 180 days before a planned exit,” said Major. Then he still needs the approval of both chambers of Congress or a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
Trump can weaken NATO even without leaving
However, Trump could also “fundamentally weaken” NATO without having to ask Congress to withdraw, explains Major. The security expert gives several examples of this: For example, Trump “couldn’t name a NATO ambassador.” Babst adds that Trump did this in his first term in office by keeping the US ambassador’s seat in NATO vacant for months. In doing so, he ensured that the US delegation – in this case a governor of the former administration – had no instructions from Washington. “And if an ambassador can’t present a national directive to the NATO Council, he sits there, but he can’t really say anything seriously.”
Major adds other ways to harm NATO: “Trump can simply withdraw US soldiers from NATO commitments. In addition to NATO commitments, he can also end bilateral deployments, such as US troops in the Baltic states.” In the USA, the president has extensive decision-making powers. Babst also sees it this way:
NATO as an entire alliance cannot decide whether the USA will remain in Europe with 100,000 men and women. This is a sovereign national decision of the USA.
NATO dependent on USA
With such decisions, Trump could weaken NATO politically and conventionally, according to Major and Babst. In fact, the USA provides key capabilities in many of NATO’s specific defense plans. This ranges from troops and logistics to intelligence gathering and reconnaissance so that the alliance can act at all, explains Major.
Who actually holds the house together politically in NATO? Who creates united positions? No other state can easily replace this political leadership role.
Also not insignificant: According to Babst, the USA, together with Germany, are the largest contributors to NATO’s civil and military budget – i.e. to the pots from which employees, meetings and programs for the benefit of Ukraine, for example, are paid, according to the expert. Babst is therefore calling for NATO to be made “Trump-proof”. NATO must “at least think about the points where the alliance is vulnerable, just in case,” she explains – for example when it comes to the NATO budget. Here the alliance must look at how the other members could possibly intercept something that has so far come from the USA.
Other possible problems arise from US core capabilities that are indispensable to the NATO command structure or the Ramstein Group, which organizes military support for Ukraine. This is led by the USA – NATO only has observer status. Babst demanded in conversation tagesschau.dethe group should be taken over by NATO.
With a view to the debate about a nuclear shield that is independent of the USA, initiated again by the SPD’s leading candidate for the European elections, Katarina Barley, Babst adds: “My recommendation is: We need a debate within NATO about expanding and modernizing the nuclear system “Arsenals with the involvement of states, such as Poland, that want to participate in the future or even station their own nuclear capabilities on their territory.”
Rethinking in the European Defense policy
According to Major, the big question for European defense policy must now be: Do we actually want to be able to defend what we have built up or not? This question must therefore also be asked if Joe Biden is elected US President again. But: “If Trump is elected, this will become even more urgent,” says Major. In principle, the question is not: “What do we have to pay for the USA to stay?” But rather: What does it take to be able to defend Europe alone?