[Editorial] NATO shaken by Donald Trump's blows oscillates
(B2) No need to deny it. Trump's coup shook the NATO Landerneau. At the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, everyone is trying to reassure themselves. In vain. Worry lurks in the corridors.
Too many words from Trump
At NATO headquarters, the atmosphere is not fun these days after Donald Trump's words on Saturday (read: [Analysis] Faced with the Trump threat, Europeans take up arms! Nine ways to react). One sentence in particular hit the mark: “ I would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they wanted to you ". Literally, if you don't pay your dues to the Alliance, I would encourage Russia to do whatever it wants to you. A few words stuck in everyone's throat and abundantly commented on in the bright corridors of the Alliance, from the cozy alcoves of the various permanent representations or directorial offices to the Starbucks located at the entrance which serves as a refuge for lovers of a short coffee break.
The Coué method no longer works
Of course, everyone tries to reassure themselves. The arguments are diverse. 1. It's normal with Trump. 2. After all, they are just words. 3. His previous presidency showed it: he talks a lot, but ultimately he does nothing wrong. 4. The Alliance stands tall and remains focused on its work plan. 5. Nothing to worry about. Etc. So many rather implausible arguments: even those concerned don't seem to believe them. Putting yourself back in the situation of 2016-2020 is a mistake.
A totally different context
there are at least three elements that have changed at Trump and elsewhere, summarizes a good expert on the Alliance. First, there is “ a form of alignment » from Trump's speech on Russia. Which is worrying. There is also a " change of scale, an evolution of discourse » with this sentence, a real call for Russia to invade a NATO country. Second, the context has changed enormously: “We have a war in Europe. Russia has chosen confrontation. Ukraine is under attack. (Quite simply) because she is independent » and refuses to be subject to the wishes of Moscow. Meanwhile, the US is procrastinating on delivering new aid to Ukraine.
A radicalization of the discourse
Finally, continues our interlocutor, “ the republican party has not really dissociated itself from its positions ". There is a " real Trumpization of the Republican Party ". The latter, almost as one man, refuses to vote for additional aid to Ukraine. This is one of the campaign arguments that Donald Trump developed in his speech in South Carolina (a point little taken up by the media in fact): why the USA must pay the bill for Ukraine which primarily concerns head the Europeans and they are not yet contributing enough?
An Alliance touched deep within itself
No point denying it: the attack hurts. Very bad (1). Because it touches the depths of what NATO holds most dear: Article 5, the mutual defense clause. The true glue of the Alliance. What Trump says clearly breaks with the principle of unity in the face of possible external aggression. Neither in the minds of its designers nor in its subsequent application, there was never any question of conditioning this solidarity, political and military, to any calculation of a notary or accountant.
Friendly fire
The fact that this cut comes from the USA, the main Ally, from a former leader, presidential candidate for one of the two main parties in the country, the Republicans, is felt as an act of treachery. An attack blue on blue (friendly fire) the military would say. The nerve center of the Alliance seems damaged. The Kremlin, in fact, today just has to rub its hands and count the blows: it does not need to do the dirty work. This one is done from the inside.
A major error of judgment
The carpet-like work done for years by Norwegian Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to brush Donald Trump's ego in the wrong direction ultimately did not pay off. On the contrary. His repeated comments on a Europe incapable of assuming its defense (read: When Jens Stoltenberg (NATO) sees the European Union incapable of defending itself. Is he right ?) strangely resonate today as a supplementary argument to the credit of the elected Republican. An additional fault in Euro-Atlantic unity.
The Alliance still dissuasive?
The question asked today by Donald Trump is crucial. Is the Alliance capable of assuming its primary function, the defense of European territory against Russia? If its main ally procrastinates, will the Alliance tomorrow be in a position to react and assume its role of deterring any attack? The answer is unfortunately: not 100% sure. The Alliance is no longer in a moral state to assume all its defense and deterrence capabilities. Which is a real problem. Because the whole principle of the Alliance's deterrence is not only in its capabilities, but above all lies in its (political) will to oppose the adversary with an indestructible rock.
A necessary plan B
Today, more than ever, we must no longer procrastinate. It is not a question of replacing the Atlantic Alliance. It is about having the capacity for Europeans to act alone without the help of the failing American “dad”. We could retort that the Europeans are not capable of it. It was undoubtedly true yesterday. This will not automatically be true tomorrow. The Europeans have everything they need internally to complete the Alliance. As long as you make a (small) effort. The effort is not so much financial today. The accounting axiom “the more you spend, the better” is heresy (2).
Europe can do it
The leap must be in terms of organization: political, industrial and military. The Europeans (including the Norwegians if necessary) must realign their defense industry to be able to act without necessary authorization from Washington. They must review their operational tools to enable them to react together. Above all, they must reorganize their decision-making system to be able to compensate for a failure of the North Atlantic Council. Relying on the Americans is too risky an investment today to delay this type of decision.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
- Just read Jens Stoltenberg's response to be convinced: “NATO remains ready and able to defend all Allies. Any attack on NATO will be met with a united and forceful response. 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. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the US will remain a strong and committed NATO Ally.”
- Europeans spent a lot during the Cold War. With much higher ratios compared to GDP. Didn’t that give them a capacity for action?
