That Donald Trump is not a NATO enthusiast is nothing new. He already showed him during His first mandatewhen he slid the possibility that the US took a step back in the Atlantic Alliance, and has underlined it several times since then, like candidate and elected president. But as the relationship It is tense With Europe and within its own team Voices are raised in favor of Washington to break with the Treaty of 1949a question arises, increasingly stronger: what would happen if the US is detached from NATO?
To answer it, you need to review a little recent history, geostrategy … and also mathematics.
An NATO without the US? Only the fact that The question this On the table It is already significant. Especially since the clouds that overshadow the future of the US in NATO do not arise from speculation or rumors, but from comments from high positions of Washington, including Trump himself, who in December, still as elected president, He complained that the Atlantic Alliance is “taking advantage of the US.”
“They take advantage of us in trade, our cars or our foods are not taken. They do not wear anything. It’s a shame. And we defend them, so the blow is double,” Trump charged during An interview In NBC News. And when the journalist asked him if she would consider excluding NATO US in case she concludes that her treatment towards the US is not “fair,” repliedresounding: “Yes, of course.” The continuity in the alliance, he stressed, is conditioned to the whole of its members “pay their bills.”
A background rumor. It was not the first time that there was talk of NATO’s departure. It hasn’t been the last. Six years ago The New York Times public that in 2018 Trump already threatened with the withdrawal of NATO. And that was during his first term. The second has started just a month And it is already marked by distancing between Washington and some of its historical allies, such as Canada or the EU. The clearest (and graphic) test was the negotiating table created by the US and Russia to end the Ukraine War without reserving a seat for Ukraine or the Union.
The trend seems to also go in Crescendo, without visos that it will break. In the last days We have seen Europe closing rows Around Ukraine, Trump and Zelenski showing Prime Time Your total lack of harmony Already Elon Musk, Trump’s great ally, Chairing the debate on the output of the US USA. Yesterday the businessman shared a tweet that he said “it’s time to leave NATO and UN” next to the next harvest message: “I Agree”.
An NATO without the US? The same question of the principle, but with a different sense, that of viability: Is a NATO with Washington in profile or in which the US directly step back? A few days ago, during An interview In the BBC, the NATO general secretary, Mark Rutte, asked if the rest of the allies could replace the US hole in case he withdraws his military support from Ukraine, his response was revealing: that scenario is not raised.
Click on the image to go to Tweet.
A “100%risk”. After insisting that the US “wants to bring Ukraine to a lasting peace”, the high position of NATO slid: “We go beyond this issue. It is crucial that we all remain together in this: USA, Ukraine, Europe, that we take Ukraine to Peace. That is exactly why Trump struggles, so we all fight.”
Zelenski, who It has been ambitioning for some time The adhesion of your country to NATO, a perspective that seems farther today, after contacts between Moscow and Washington, is even clearer. In Another talk Recent with journalists, he warned of the consequences that Trump would have to step back in NATO, not only for his country, but for the whole of the continent: “The risk of Russia from occupying Europe is one hundred percent if the United States withdraws from NATO.”
Weight question. The key is the weight that Washington has in NATO. The agency’s estimates by 2024 provided that the US be The third country of the alliance that higher percentage of its GDP allocated to defense, 3.4%, only behind Poland and Estonia. Washington’s commitments go beyond the North Atlantic Treaty and given the size of its economy, it is estimated that US defense spending represents near two thirds of NATO total.
As for costs, the body applies A cast Based on national income and the US stands out again as one of the greatest taxpayers, with almost 16%, like Germany. The United Kingdom is in third place with 11% and France occupies fourth place, with just over 10%.
Of percentages to dollars. World Population Review has created A map in which the contribution of each country attached to NATO in 2023 is even more graphic, both in the percentage of GDP and in funds dedicated to investment in defense. The US stands out with 3.49% and 860,000 million of dollars, well above From the second country, Germany.
As a picture is worth a thousand words, it is good to take a look at the graphic prepared in 2024 by Visual Capitalist to understand the weight of US investment in defense compared to the other 31 countries of the Alliance.
The other approach. It matters what the United States contributes, but it also matters to what extent the rest of the countries attached to NATO contribute. Trump has already publicly demanded the rest of the nations that raise their contribution until reaching 5% of his GDP, even above what the US himself allocates. And he does not seem willing to change his strategy. “I told the countries ‘I will not protect them unless you pay,’ and they started paying. That amounted to more than 600,000 million dollars,” He presumed In December.
The 5% barrier is well above the 2% that NATO itself has been marked, the latter percentage that probably not to review and that is considerably far from what they invest in the countries attached to NATO. His forecast By 2024 it left below the 2% line to Croatia, Portugal, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain, located in line with 1.3%. The US also stands out for its overwhelming weight in support for the defense of Ukraine.
Article 5, the key. There is another key as or more important than the contribution of resources and it is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the mutual support is supported in case of aggression: “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them, which takes place in Europe or North America, will be considered as an attack directed against all of them”, so in case that scenario is reached each country “will help the part or part attacked”, without ruling out the use of the armed force.
“Any armed attack of this nature and all the measures adopted accordingly will be immediately made known to the Security Council,” says article 5 before sketching what is considered exactly an “armed attack”, such as the violation of borders, ships or airplanes. In his point 13 The treaty, signed in April 1949 in Washington, also recognizes that after twenty years “any of the parties may cease to be.”
Beyond paper. In 2001, after the 11-S attacks, the North Atlantic Council He formally invoked The mutual defense clause, appealing to the rest of the alliance members to go to their aid. In An article Posted in June in The conversation Politologists give reiter and Brian Greenhill point out that in reality “the alliance agreements are more flexible than people think.”
“In practice it is possible that the United States and other Western countries remain out of a conflict in which an NATO country is involved without having to break its alliances commitments,” They pointed out Both teachers: “The language of the NATO treaty contains lagoons that allow member countries to remain out of the wars of other members in certain situations.”
What does article 5 mean then? That is the question that Reiter and Greenhill were asked, and Your conclusion It was clear. First, the Treaty “does not include a clear definition” of what it really means an armed aggression, as shown in February 2020 after the attacks of the Russian and Syrian forces to Turkish territory.
Second, experts point out, even in the event that it is considered that the aggression conforms to the philosophy of article 5 remains without “a central NATO authority that tells each country what to do.” “Instead, each country tells NATO what it is, and that you are not willing to do,” They argue.
The 2001 example. Both experts Remember In fact, after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in 2001, not all NATO members mobilized troops to Afghanistan to support the US in their fight against the smells. “It was not considered a violation of the treaty or gave rise to an important debate and the countries that did not choose to join the fight were not sanctioned or expelled from the alliance.”
In favor of article 5 there would be internal pressure in countries and voters about their rulers, something proven by Reiter and Greenhill themselves with a sociological experiment, but Both recognize also that political leaders can influence their speech. “The alliance’s commitments are not so binding, or politically, as conventional wisdom suggests.”
Images | Gage Skidmore (Flickr) and Wikipedia 1 and 2, NATO and Visual Capitalist
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}