Appeasement
For many years Donald Trump has been out to end US participation in NATO, citing defense costs but actually being keen to appease Vladimir Putin. As some of Trump’s former national security advisers have said, Trump has no conception of NATO’s importance for collective security, no sense that NATO represents forward defense of the US no less than of Europe. To Trump, security alliances are like any other investment: You evaluate them on the basis of return on investment, and you pull out when the market goes down.
The companion to Trump’s callous disregard for NATO is his appeasement of Putin’s Russia. The latest evidence, widely reported, is this campaign tidbit:
“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” “‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted responding. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay.”
Trump’s infatuation with dictators like Putin is well documented. We all recall his meetings with Putin—always secretive and always displaying more trust in Putin than in Trump’s advisers and his intelligence services. Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister during Trump’s presidency, recalled recently: “When you see Trump with Putin, as I have on a few occasions, he’s like the 12-year-old boy that goes to high school and meets the captain of the football team. ‘My hero!’ It’s really creepy.”
The Reaction
I doubt that that conversation actually happened, but no matter. He said it: If NATO members cannot pay their share of the bill, Russia can “do whatever the hell they want” to Europe. This astounding statement, once inconceivable from a Republican, was immediately denounced—by Europeans, by President Biden and other top officials, by Senator Mitt Romney, and by Nikki Haley—in fact, by most everyone except the MAGA-ites in the House and Senate. They did the usual—going along to get along.
Here are some examples of reactions to Trump’s comment:
- Former British defense minister Tobias Ellwood: “It’s arguably the most irresponsible comment that any former president has made on international security.”
- General Charles Q. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “This year is the 75th anniversary of NATO. And I think we have a responsibility to uphold those alliances. U.S. credibility is at stake with each of our alliances, and U.S. leadership is still needed, wanted and watched.”
- Senator Romney: “If we fail to help Ukraine, Putin will invade a NATO nation. Ukraine is not the end, it is a step—and letting Putin have his way with Europe would jeopardize our security.”
- Kurt Volker, former ambassador to NATO and special envoy to Ukraine: “It’s really an outrageous comment. I mean, if you look at what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now . . . you shouldn’t wish this on anybody. And to say that we would encourage Putin to attack one of our allies is really too much.”
It Will Happen Again
Trump was probably not raising the issue of costs as a pressure tactic to get NATO members to pay more for mutual defense—their “dues” of 2 percent of GDP. Nor can the comment be dismissed as mere campaign rhetoric. He’s deadly serious about withdrawing and leaving Europe, starting with Ukraine, to fend for itself against Russia. Trump tried to pull out of NATO in his first term—and not just from NATO but also from US security alliances with Japan and South Korea. Fortunately, at that time there were guardrails around Trump—experienced military and civilian officials who understood the calamity that would befall US interests if Trump followed through. These officials also saw that Trump had neither the understanding nor the interest in alliance affairs. He simply followed his gut feelings, and his pocketbook. Saudi Arabia looked like a better investment than Europe or Asia, and still does.
An intriguing question in what the professional military leaders would do if Trump, once again president, were to order an end to US participation in NATO, leaving the field to Russia. During his previous term, when Trump indicated he wanted the US out, the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledged that Trump, as commander in chief, would be constitutionally permitted to make a withdrawal decision. If the same issue were to come up again—and those closest to him are certain it will if he is elected—would the military leaders go along? Or would we face an unprecedented national security crisis brought about by their refusal to obey orders?
In Our Own Interests
To come back to the matter of costs, European members of NATO, the Japanese, and the Koreans surely ought to pay more for their defense. In fact, in recent years they have been paying more, regarding such payments as a form of rent for reliance on US forces and promises. But those payments are not the real issue. The US alliance system that has been under construction since the start of the Cold War is mainly a US creation built to serve American interests in containing and deterring Russia in Europe, China and North Korea in East Asia. To be sure, that emphasis slights diplomacy, which ought to receive at least as much attention in US security policy as the military side. But abandoning allies would expose vulnerabilities that the Russians and the Chinese would pounce on, greatly increasing the risk to US security just as assuredly as did appeasement of Nazi Germany.in the 1930s.
The larger issue here is the limits of Donald Trump’s foreign-policy thinking, a subject I wrote about a few years ago (America in Retreat). Some people call his views transactionalist, others isolationist. His thinking certainly incorporates both those elements, but in the main it’s simply self-serving, narrow-minded, and shallow. Only two foreign-policy issues get his attention: commerce and immigration. All else—strategy, intelligence, foreign aid, human rights, ideology, climate change—is of no interest to him. That’s what makes it easy for him to abandon Europe to Russia: He doesn’t see the larger costs and consequences—and couldn’t care less.
In the Human Interest - Mel Gurtov 