As much as U.S. President Donald Trump may want it and the social media spin cycle promotes it, a divorce between the United States and NATO would be extraordinarily hard to achieve because neither side sees it in their interest — at the moment.
Witness this week’s latest tirade leading up to the regularly scheduled meeting between Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
The meeting came a week after the U.S. president told Reuters that he was “absolutely” considering withdrawing from NATO following the refusal of allies to join the American-Israeli campaign against Iran.
Speculation launched into the stratosphere on Wednesday when White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, ahead of the meeting, quoted the president as saying NATO was “tested and they failed.”
She said NATO countries had “turned their backs on the American people,” who fund their nations’ defence, and that Trump would have a “very frank and candid conversation” with Rutte.
Everyone once again braced for impact, as they had done the week before when it was widely expected Trump’s Iran speech would tear the guts out of the Western military alliance.
He barely mentioned allies in that address, other than to suggest they help police the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway his war had made unsafe.
And instead of a mighty roar on Wednesday, Trump posted to his Truth Social account that “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.”
On Thursday, Rutte in a speech said that the alliance remains an important partner to the U.S.
The U.S. and Iran reached a fragile ceasefire agreement hours after President Donald Trump’s threat to destroy Iran’s ‘whole civilization.’ Andrew Chang explains what’s complicating the deal, breaking down the confusion around its terms and the hurdles remaining as U.S.-Israel negotiations with Iran continue.
Images provided by The Canadian Press, Reuters, Adobe Stock and Getty Images
An official in Trump’s administration, speaking on background to The Wall Street Journal, said Trump would likely seek to punish individual allies who didn’t support the American-Israeli war.
There’s a difference between taking your anger out on certain countries and throwing the whole alliance into the trash bin, said Canada’s former ambassador to NATO, Kerry Buck.
“He could be aiming at punishing the individual allies who he felt didn’t do enough, in which case that’s par for the Trump course and doesn’t necessarily do damage to NATO,” Buck said.
“The problem is he’s linking it to NATO repeatedly in his rhetoric, so he’s already doing damage to the organization as such. But it doesn’t necessarily translate into the U.S. taking steps within NATO to undercut the organization.”
The way Buck sees it: If the U.S. was serious about leaving NATO or punishing the organization as a whole, it could do one of three things.
It could withdraw by stealth — remain in the fold on paper, but not fill key positions within the alliance — or drag its feet on making key appointments and payments.
The second way would be to not show up in a crisis — or conduct a limited troop withdrawal ahead of time in key regions, such as eastern Poland where the U.S. leads NATO’s deterrence contingent with an anticipated 10,000 soldiers.
The third so-called “nuclear” option would be to issue the 180-day notice of full withdrawal from the Washington Treaty. The legislative limits, imposed by the U.S. Congress in 2024, require a two-thirds majority of the Senate to back the divorce.
And that’s where the rhetoric comes crashing back to Earth.
“There’s still significant members in the [Republican] Party who understand the benefit to the U.S. of NATO,” said Buck. “So I won’t even start to guess at where the politics, the American politics, internal politics, might take this.”
U.S. President Donald Trump said he’s considering pulling the United States out of NATO. But thanks to a 2023 law, he can’t do that unless Congress agrees to go along with it.
Also, according to a recent Pew Research Center study, NATO membership remains popular among Americans. The survey showed that last year, 66 per cent of U.S. respondents believed America benefited from alliance membership while 32 per cent thought it didn’t.
Buck, however, pointed out that support for NATO among Republicans has slipped below 50 per cent for the first time.
Walking out the door would also likely deprive the U.S. of European bases and cost its defence industrial complex European customers.
The real damage, Buck said, is already taking place with an emboldened Russia, which this week tested NATO by placing submarines over transatlantic cables in waters off the United Kingdom.
“If [Russian President Vladimir] Putin thinks that NATO is weak, the deterrent force of the collective defence guarantee is lost,” Buck said. “That’s what Trump’s been doing consistently, but it’s much more pointed now, much more dangerous, much riskier.”
As with any relationship, it takes two to make it and two to break it. The way it’s been framed by some commentators is that American withdrawal from NATO would be an apocalyptic event and the end of the alliance.
But what about the flip side of that narrative: if Europe is fed up and ready for a divorce?
A year ago, the International Institute for Security Studies (IISS) mapped out what NATO would look like without the United States.
The study found, on a cash basis, Europe is not ready to move out of the house Washington built. It would cost an estimated $1 trillion US on top of already increased European defence budgets to build and replace American capability.
“Not only would European allies need to replace major U.S. military platforms and manpower — the latter estimated at 128,000 troops — but also address shortfalls in space and all-domain intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets,” said the study.
“They would also need to replace the significant U.S. contribution to NATO’s command and control arrangements and fill many senior military positions in NATO organizations currently occupied by U.S. personnel.”
Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, has also thought about how the alliance can make it on its own.
“The Europeanization of NATO will require three things that are currently in short supply: money, time and U.S. co-operation,” Daalder wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine a year ago.
“Not counting the United States, NATO’s other 31 members comprise a population of more than 600 million people as well as a collection of economic resources more than 10 times those of Russia. These countries, despite having had to rely on the United States for so long, are fully capable of ensuring their future security for themselves. The time to start is now.”
Canada’s former top military commander, retired general Tom Lawson, said he wondered how much more patience the other members of NATO might have left — and that the Iran crisis has created a climate of irreconcilable differences.
Retired general Tom Lawson, formerly the chief of the defence staff for Canada’s military, says ‘we’re seeing a complete misalignment between what the Americans were saying had been agreed to and what had actually been negotiated’ in the Iranian ceasefire because ‘the Americans see this as their way out.’ Lawson says U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization was an empty one: ‘He knew he had a military that would not follow illegal orders, which those certainly would have been.’
“I think there’s an increasing realization that this is an ally that they can’t trust, they can’t rely on,” Lawson told CBC’s Power & Politics on Wednesday.
“It’s a president who has become lawless and belligerent to so many others, supported by a sycophantic administration, with a Congress that seems to have no interest in reining him in and a population that has become less and less kind and generous — generous to the rest of the world.”
There is a mechanism within the Washington Treaty, Article 13, that allows members to quit with one year’s notice. It’s called a denunciation and it’s never been used before.
