Europe is worried. Donald Trump’s statement last week that he would “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to Nato allies that don’t spend enough on defence has made many European officials and leaders acutely uneasy. He is, after all, the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination and polls above incumbent Joe Biden in many surveys ahead of the November presidential election in the US.
Trump’s irritation towards fellow Nato members that do not spend 2% of their GDP on defence is well known, as is his soft spot for Russian President Vladimir Putin. The uncomfortable reality is that only 11 Nato states spent more than the requirement of 2% of GDP on defence last year. Thirteen EU members did not, including Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
However, this outburst — in effect threatening that a Trump administration might ignore Nato’s mutual defence clause and not come to the aid of a Nato member attacked by Russia — sets an extraordinary precedent.
Unsurprisingly, European politicians were quick to react with furious indignation. Even the usually reserved Nato secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, snapped back, saying: “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.”
With a second Trump term in the White House looking increasingly likely, Europe is already feeling less safe. And it goes beyond merely defence budgets.
Should he be re-elected, Europe — and the rest of the world — should be bracing for an intensified version of the “America First” doctrine which allies had to contend with during his first presidency. Europeans are all too aware that Nato’s Article 5 principle — that all allies must come to the aid of one that is attacked — is not legally binding. It is, moreover, a promise, to perform “such action as [a country] deems necessary” that seeks to deter any adversary by instilling the fear of provoking a united response.
The implications of questioning such a cornerstone of global order are profound.
First, it makes Nato member states feel immediately less safe. Last week, Denmark’s defence minister warned that Russia could attack a Nato country in as little as three years, in the latest and starkest warning from a Western official about Moscow’s appetite for confrontation beyond its war in Ukraine.
“It cannot be ruled out that within a three- to five-year period, Russia will test Article 5 and Nato’s solidarity. That was not Nato’s assessment in 2023. This is new information that is coming to the fore now,” Troels Lund Poulsen told Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper.
Second, another Trump presidency would strain European unity as never before. With European parliamentary elections anticipated to reflect increasing support for far-right parties across the bloc, a Trump victory would embolden nationalist leaders and parties. Figures like Matteo Salvini in Italy and Viktor Orbán in Hungary would probably feel bolstered by Trump’s re-election, potentially leading to shifts in policies such as support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.
However, there is a counter-argument. Faced with a volatile US administration and a looming existential threat from Russia, Europe could be compelled to deepen integration for a true geopolitical federation. This would involve multigenerational investments in defence, and necessitate further economic and fiscal integration to achieve the “Strategic Autonomy” as advocated by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Europe is suffering from a half-baked monetary union that lacks sufficient fiscal and political integration.
Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, famously said, “Europe will be forged in crisis, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.”
Another Trump presidency could indeed be that crisis which takes Europe forward to far greater degrees of integration, purely because, without such integration, it would not survive.
Finally, a second Trump presidency would not only affect Nato and Europe, but also have broader implications for global security and economic stability. The security guarantee provided by the US has been a cornerstone of Western stability and global order since World War 2, contributing to global peace and prosperity. The return of Trump to the White House would jeopardise this constancy, making the world a more uncertain place.
Already the world may be moving inexorably towards a new, far less stable, far more anarchic global system. The events of the past two years, primarily in Ukraine and the Middle East, would seem to confirm that. However, that does not make this outcome any less concerning. As the US elections approach, all countries, including South Africa, must be prepared to navigate the potential consequences of such a reality. DM
Become an Insider
Trump is the ultimate lose cannon, but hyperbole aside why should America sacrifice its youth defending Europeans who don’t want to fight for themselves? Besides, although the Trump presidency was regarded by his critics as a danger to world peace he started no new wars… unusual for a modern US President and in stark contrast to his successor who is busy financing two as we speak.
Hardly any American soldiers died defending Europeans since the end of the second World War. Granted they served as a deterrent to the Soviet Union in Europe but then again it was not in the US’s interests that the Soviets took over any more European countries than they already have.
However European bases have been crucial to American operations in the Middle East. If the US leaves NATO they would like lose access to those bases. Likewise they will see a dip in their arms sales to NATO countries – as these countries will then buy more internally. NATO is not a case of Europe’s benefit and US paying up – it benefits all the partners.
However Europe should do more to look at their own defense (and they are getting there). Many people in the early 2000’s thought Russia would join the West and focus on co-existing peacefully while growing economically. The Germans especially invested big time into Russia. So when Putin started showing his real colors in 2007 / 2008 with the invasion of Georgia, the Europeans having invested so much turned a blind eye and hoped for the best.
If Russia invaded any NATO country apart from Turkey immediate and huge US troop deployments would be necessary. As to Germany it wasn’t Russia that blew up the Nord Stream. US officials up to and including the President made it explicit that Nord 2 would not stand. The US wants to make Germany dependent on expensive LPG imported from them. Piracy really yet they get away with it and the ‘brave’ ‘truth loving’ media remain silent apart from independent voices like Hirsch and Greenwald.
Fair points that you make there even if he (Trump) is the ultimate twat.
That is not really a fair comparison, Biden did not start the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, they were forced upon him.
Biden did not start the Ukraine war but he could vetoed Ukraine’s request to access NATO while knowing well what could have happenned. Furthermore, though Biden did not start the war, he is fuelling it with infinite support measured in billions of dollars. Such support makes him fully responsible for the continuation of the war. We also have to remember that Zelensky was ready to make a Peace deal with Putin but he (Zelensky) was quickly discouraged to make peace upon Biden and Boris Johnson’s orders. For Biden, the Ukraine is a business enriching the arms industry. It’s very clear.
but Biden was completely responsible for the disaster of the withdrawal from Afghanistan
I visited the US in the middle of the last Trump presidency. Like many others I was horrified when he was voted in and was perplexed that reasonable people could vote him in. I was therefore more than a little surprised to meet, talk to and observe a Trump run US. The economy was booming. There were signs in virtually every shopfront and business offering jobs. Roads and infrastructure were being worked on everywhere. I spoke to as many strangers as I could about their feelings about Trump. Almost without exception the response was something along the lines of: “We are not crazy about his tweets and some of his bluster, but he is doing great things for our country, our savings are safe and growing and we like his strong foreign policy stance”. I travelled through nine states. It was certainly an eye opener to gain a new perspective on the matter. By the way I am NOT a Trump fan and would vote for Bobby Kennedy Jnr if I had the chance.
Super interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Like Trump or hate him, on this I agree 100%.
I fail to understand how a second Trump presidency would have implications for global security. The US did not enter into any new conflicts during Trump’s term and in fact Trump laid the plans for the US withdrawal from Afghanistan (completely messed up by Biden of course). And what is wrong with putting his own country first above others? Isn’t this what all good leaders should do?
Yes, Trump has been vocal about the one-sided support to NATO, the UN and WHO from the US and quite rightly questions their intent, integrity and actions – we all do that, particularly after the COVI disaster driven by the WHO and the toothless hopeless romantics in the UN and NATO.
You don’t have to like Trump to see the rationality in much of what he did, the delivery may have been questionable but the rationality of it was not far off what is needed for the US
All the deadbeats need to do is pay their share. That isn’t complicated or an outlandish expectation by the Americans.
I don’t believe Americans want more Trump chaos.
I think Trump’s only chance to win the election will be if he gets his minions to assassinate Joe Biden.
this is one of the most hilarious comments I have read in years!!! Biden is mentally incapable of running for a second term. Any candidate could beat him in the upcoming election! Lol!
The US defence industry will not tolerate a president that interferes with sales of their equipment and ammunition to Nato. They are an incredibly powerful lobby through the Senate and the House. So low likelihood anything more than speeches come of this.
Members should all contribute with certain minimum spending. Thing is, there is no central Nato budget that pools the funds and then allocates it, other than a tiny fraction spent on Nato structures. In effect countries spend on their own military.
At least there are now more Nato members, and more to come. So the force projection of Nato has increased. I think just Finland roughly doubled putin’s direct Nato border frontage.
What would be more effective and popular is that Nato turns around and warns the non-Nato countries that as long as they prop up things like oil prices through Opec+ in order to profiteer, they should not expect Nato to come riding over the hill to rescue non-Nato members when some bully in their region needs taming.
I don’t believe Article 5 has ever been activated (??) but I do know Nato has acted dozens of times to rescue non-Nato members.
Article 5 has been activated once so far, in favor of the USA, as a result of 9/11. The result was support for the US mission in Afghanistan by several NATO countries. Angela Merkel felt compelled to remind Donald Trump of this during his first term in office.
Did Nato attack after 9/11? All I remember is the US doing bombs and cruise missiles on anything they thought might be hostile. I don’t recall response from all over Nato.
In the end they got Bin Laden years later with a few choppers and a platoon.
On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the terrorist attacks
the previous day in the United States, NATO declared for the first time in its history a possible alliance under Article 5. This obliges all
NATO members to support a partner country that is attacked. NATO said
the attacks would be classified accordingly if it turns out that they
were initiated from abroad. On October 2nd, NATO declared that the
conditions had been met: the perpetrators of September 11th were part of the global terrorist network Al Qaeda. This makes it clear that they were controlled from outside the USA. As a result, NATO supported the
USA with reconnaissance aircraft, which patrolled the airspace over the
USA until mid-May 2002. NATO ships cruised the Mediterranean hunting
terrorists. Subsequently, NATO states and non-members provided logistical and military support for the US mission “Enduring Freedom”.
I fail to understand how a second Trump presidency would have implications for global security. The US did not enter into any new conflicts during Trump’s term and in fact Trump laid the plans for the US withdrawal from Afghanistan (completely messed up by Biden of course). And what is wrong with putting his own country first above others? Isn’t this what all good leaders should do? Yes, Trump has been vocal about the one-sided support to NATO, the UN and WHO from the US and quite rightly questions their intent, integrity and actions – we all do that, particularly after the nasty flu disaster driven by the WHO and the toothless UN and NATO. You don’t have to like Trump to see the rationality in much of what he did, the delivery may have been questionable in his tweeting and public appearances but the rationality of it was not far off what is needed for the US
If the US support for Nato is “one sided” how would you describe the US support for Israel? And when the “America First” policy includes cutting off that support will you be quite so supportive of Trump?
Don’t let your blind hatred for Trump get in your way, I didn’t say I supported Trump, I pointed out that what he did during his term as President was to the benefit of the US as it should be as opposed to the current sitting President and his party
Trump was instrumental in getting the Abraham Accords in place, he’s done more for peace in the Middle East that most before and certainly since
if you think this is just about Israel then you are hopelessly deluded, the US involvement is more about containing an existential threat to democracy, if you think for a moment Hamas, Hezbollah and co are going to stop after they’ve captured Israel and wiped it and its citizens off the map then you are in La-La Land, the fact they are VERY active in Africa is evidence of this, Al Shabab have already pushed down into Northern Mozambique and Boko Haram continue to ravage and decimate villages in East Africa
The US has for decades financed its multiple wars with debt. In Europe, hard hit by “austerity”, putting 2% of GDP into military expenditure is a big ask. This is not about “deadbeats paying up”. Arming the world for more war simply puts more money into the coffers of arms dealers, of which the US has by far the most. Read between the lines, trump is saying buy more guns and rockets from us, and it’s an effective way to secure corrupt… oh I mean, “lobby fees”.
There will be a time after Trump, and sooner or later a time after Putin, and who knows which path Russia will take then? But one thing is certain: whoever governs the USA will act according to the old Roman principle of devide et impera – divide and rule. An industrial-economic-monetary Eurasian unity from Lisbon to Vladivostok would be a much greater challenge for the USA than a China-led “Global South” could ever be. The economic-military dominance of the USA depends on the USD’s function as a global currency reserve. If the USA were to withdraw from NATO and provoke a conflict between Russia and EU states, they might not play along. The free reign of Trump’s hubris could herald the end of “America First”.
Know your history. The misconceptions that are continuously propagated by a global biased media is simply staggering, as is the ignorance and lack of factual research and the extensive use and leaning on the published opinions of other journalists, no matter the slant of their personal biases. A farmyard analogy: … feeding from the same trough.
I may not want Trump at my friends and neighbors’ braai this weekend, and there is no doubt that he is an abrasive personality, but he should be judged by his actions, not his accent. There is no “soft spot” for Putin in Trump’s mind, despite Hillary Clinton’s best (and legally discredited) efforts to make that political diatribe stick in the public’s mind. Trump understands the extension of power to act as a deterrent to aberrant behavior by bad players like Putin’s Russia, which greatly helped to limit Putin’s military hegemony at the time. He is a believer in peace – witness the unprecedented the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords achieved between Israel, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan (“… best way … is through cooperation and dialogue and … developing friendly relations among States (to) advance the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world.”) This has been consistently and conveniently ignored by the same feeding frenzied media who loudly proclaimed that he was going cause a conflagration in his first term. No, he does not threaten world peace, but a weak current administration does, witness 24 February 2022. The economies that have not met their 2% GDP NATO obligations include the 2 largest economies in Europe – France and Germany: They, if anyone, threaten European security (France left the NATO military structure in 1966, but remains committed to Nato). Trump’s abrasive way to pull the members into line may not sit well with the Europeans, but it is getting them to sit up and take action. Please do your homework – just because you can imagine something, does not mean that your opinion is anchored in reality. Leftist trope may sell well, but if you publish you have a moral obligation to truth.
With an erratic personality like Donald Trump, you never know to what extent he actually does what he says. But you have to take everything into account. Where he’s right, he’s right. The 2% target is a voluntary commitment from all NATO partners. It was also demanded by Obama, only phrased more politely. When it comes to implementation, the electorate in the partner countries must be convinced and taken along. But that shouldn’t be a problem anymore, Putin has done a great job by finally showing his true colors.
If a Trump presidency makes them(Europe) to be self-sufficient, that’s good.
A boogeyman(Russia) card is not a great geopolitical strategy and certainly not a wise foreign policy.