NATO during Trump's era: Is it possible for the U.S. to leave the alliance, and what implications would that have?
Donald Trump threatens to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. Read about the feasibility of this, the challenges the alliance faces, and whether European NATO members can ensure their own security in the article by RBK-Ukraine journalist Roman Kot.
CONTENTS
At one time, the first NATO Secretary-General, British Hastings Ismay, articulated the alliance's purpose as: "to keep the Russians out of Europe, to ensure a strong American presence there, and to contain Germany." This statement is still somewhat valid today, albeit in a more acute form. NATO faces a range of external and internal challenges, with Donald Trump's rise to power in the U.S. being just one of them.
During his first presidency, Donald Trump was skeptical of NATO as a collective force capable of maintaining security in the North Atlantic. He claimed that European members spend little on defense while benefiting from the security umbrella provided by the U.S. – the most powerful member of the alliance. There was even talk of a possible U.S. exit from NATO.
On the eve of his second presidency, Trump reiterates these claims, although Europeans have started to increase their own defense spending. Moreover, the threat to European NATO members from Russia has become more than obvious.
All of this poses challenges for Ukraine as well, since NATO countries have effectively become our rear guard in deterring Russian aggression.
From which directions NATO expects attacks
Support for Ukraine remains a top priority for NATO as an organization and for its European members in particular. The security of the Black Sea is also crucial for NATO. However, the Ukrainian Defense Forces have significantly weakened the Russian Black Sea Fleet and military infrastructure in occupied Crimea, thus the threat in that direction is currently relatively lower.
At the same time, data from European intelligence agencies indicate that Russia does not plan to stop at Ukraine and is preparing for aggression in other directions. In February, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius did not rule out an attack on a NATO member country in the medium term.
"I cannot predict whether an attack on NATO territory will occur and when. But it could happen in five to eight years," – Pistorius stated.
In June, Norway's Chief of Defense Eirik Kristoffersen told Bloomberg that NATO has two to three years to prepare for a potential confrontation with Russia. These timelines are linked to the restoration of Russia's military capabilities following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, this threat will grow if some sanctions against Russia are lifted during negotiations.
On November 27, the President of the Federal Intelligence Service of Germany, Bruno Kahl, stated that Russia may attempt to create discord among NATO members. Speaking at a conference of the "German Society for Foreign Policy," he noted that Russia could initiate aggression against the Baltic states, with the Suwalki Corridor being a particularly vulnerable target – a narrow stretch connecting Poland and Lithuania.
According to Kahl, another potential point of attack is the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard. Its legal status is somewhat unique. According to a special treaty from 1920, sovereignty over the archipelago belongs to Norway, but Russia and several other countries have the right to use its resources. Near the islands, Russia regularly conducts military exercises, even though this area is considered a demilitarized zone.
North Atlantic. Svalbard archipelago highlighted in red
The Arctic is generally a less visible but increasingly important region for NATO. The Russian Northern Fleet includes missile cruisers, large landing ships, and even nuclear submarines with strategic capabilities armed with nuclear warheads.
The Arctic route is the shortest path for intercontinental ballistic missiles that Russia could potentially launch at the U.S. and Canada. Additionally, due to global warming, the so-called Northern Sea Route is opening up for navigation, enabling Russia to export hydrocarbons via shorter routes to Asia.
"Russia is massively unfreezing Soviet-era facilities, increasing its presence in the region," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated in August.
According to him, this compels NATO to double its contingent in the Arctic.
Should NATO rely on the U.S.
Amid all these threats, the central question is whether European NATO members can count on support from across the ocean.
The elected U.S. president links American participation in NATO to an increase in defense spending, which, in his opinion, should be covered by Washington's European partners.
"If they pay their bills, absolutely," – Trump said on December 8 in an interview with NBC News.
During his first term, the politician insisted that European NATO members should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. However, now, according to the Financial Times, he will demand an increase in spending to 5% of GDP.
Previously, during the campaign, Trump threatened not to defend alliance members with low spending. For example, in February he recounted a conversation with an unnamed foreign leader about what could happen: "One of the presidents of a large country stood up and said: 'Well, sir, if we don't pay and Russia attacks us, will you protect us?' I said: 'You didn't pay... no, I wouldn't protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever they want.'"
Whatever may be behind these statements, in the event of Russian aggression, the decision in the U.S. will be made by an opportunistic politician who operates on the principle of "you – me, I – you." This is the main risk for European NATO members.
"I think that won't happen right now. I mean, he had the condition of 'pay or we exit.' Trump was essentially, to put it simply, blackmailing," – said Pavel Zhovnirenko, chairman of the board of the NGO "Center for Strategic Studies," in an interview with RBK-Ukraine.
At the same time, the concept of "paying the bills" can be very broad. Although during his first term Trump insisted that all alliance members should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, not all alliance participants have achieved even that benchmark. Moreover, it is uncertain whether Trump will not impose other demands related to specific member countries.
In 2023, the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring that any presidential decision to withdraw from NATO must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate or authorized by a congressional act. Currently, Republicans hold only a slim majority in both chambers, so there are not enough votes to exit the alliance. Not to mention that not all Republicans support such a move.
However, as Politico notes, U.S. foreign policy falls precisely under the president's authority, so if Trump decides unilaterally, legal battles are likely to ensue, with the Supreme Court ultimately deciding the matter. The majority of the Court consists of conservative judges appointed by Trump during his first term.
Another scenario exists. It was described in the cautionary novel "War with Russia" by Richard Shirreff, who served as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2011 to 2014. The plot depicts a hybrid attack by Russia on the Baltic states, deploying troops to "protect the Russian-speaking population." However, the U.S. and other alliance leaders refrained from invoking Article 5 of the NATO Charter in the early stages of the conflict. Thus, the Baltic states were left to fend for themselves.
"I can't imagine that the U.S. would formally exit NATO, but what the attitude towards Article 5 and assistance to other alliance countries will be – that's an open question," – noted Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies, in a comment to RBK-Ukraine.
According to Zhovnirenko, the policy of non-intervention fits into the previous patterns of U.S. behavior during world wars.
"Remembering history, I think the United States will do everything possible to delay its direct involvement in military operations. Just as it was during World War I and World War II. I don't want to be a 'Cassandra,' but it seems that the U.S. might need a new Pearl Harbor to engage," – said Zhovnirenko.
Additionally, there are numerous subtle but significant ways in which Trump could harm NATO: recalling the U.S. ambassador to the alliance, prohibiting diplomats from attending alliance meetings, or halting funding for the headquarters.