A core tenet of the NATO alliance is that if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other members must come to its defense.
When the Soviet Union was the concern of the U.S. and NATO, and the alliance had just 12 members, the "security guarantee" that governed the alliance made sense.
Today, there are 32 countries in NATO. One member, Islamist Turkey, could end up attacking other members. However, the real drawback to the security guarantee is that some members have weak, nearly non-existent militaries. The Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are former (unwilling) members of the Soviet Union, and defending them from modern-day Russia or another aggressive state would take the entire NATO alliance. Those three states combined would be crushed by the Russian military.
They are, in effect, "trip-wire states" of no use to NATO unless their alliance wants to start a war.
Donald Trump wants to change the security guarantee.
“Well, I think it’s common sense,” Trump said. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them," Trump said in an Oval Office briefing.
Trump questioned what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot.
“If the United States was in trouble and we called them… you think they’re going to come and protect us? They’re supposed to. I’m not so sure,” he said.
France, Germany, and even the British would be hard-pressed to send more than a few thousand troops across the Atlantic Ocean to defend America if that were the case.
The president is similarly considering a policy change in which the U.S. may choose to prioritize military exercises with NATO members that are spending the set percentage of their GDPs on defense, the officials said. His administration has already signaled to America’s European allies that the U.S. could reduce its military presence in Europe, and one option now under consideration is to reposition some U.S. troops in the region so they are focused in or around NATO countries that have scaled their defense spending to meet the specific percentage of their GDPs, the officials said.
Asked about Trump considering making these changes to how the U.S. engages with NATO, a National Security Council official said in a written statement, “President Trump is committed to NATO and Article V.”
Sen. Chris Coons, of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Defense and a senior senator on the Foreign Relations panel, said Trump’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, “gave very reassuring answers” on the administration’s commitment to NATO and Article 5.
It was sometimes said by NATO opponents in the U.S. during the Cold War that France and Germany would much rather sit back and watch the missiles flying over their heads in both directions than get in the middle of a war between the Soviets and the Americans. That might have been a secret wish of most NATO nations at that time, but it was never a realistic one.
Benjamin Franklin's admonishment to the Continental Congress during the signing of the Declaration of Independence that "We must all hang together or most assuredly, we surely will hang separately" applies here. (Franklin may never have said it, but it was undoubtedly on the minds of delegates at that time.)
In many ways, NATO has outlived its usefulness as a defense alliance. This is especially true considering that many NATO nations, the richest alliance of nations in human history, are not willing to pony up 2% of their GDP to protect themselves.
Making America Great Again also means making Europe good enough to protect itself.
