Former President Donald Trump’s claim that he would “encourage” Russia to attack NATO allies that fail to spend enough on defense has stoked anxiety about how his return to power might affect the trans-Atlantic alliance.
“NATO cannot be an a la carte military alliance,” European Union High Representative Josep Borrell told reporters on Monday. “NATO cannot be an alliance that works depending on the [mood] of the president of the United States. … It exists, or it does not exist.”
Trump startled Western officials during a campaign rally on Saturday in which he described telling European officials that if an ally that falls short of defense spending requirements faces an invasion, he would “encourage [the attacker] to do whatever the hell they want.” Some Republican politicians have argued that Trump simply intends to spur the allies to contribute more to alliance security, but European officials worry about the way Russian President Vladimir Putin will interpret the remarks.
“We have a murderer in the neighborhood who is listening [to] how the village people are [talking to] each other,” a senior European official told the Washington Examiner. “And [the Russians] can misinterpret. They will definitely misinterpret.”
It is not clear how such rhetoric might color Putin’s perceptions of the credibility of the alliance. Throughout the war in Ukraine, the Kremlin has proven hesitant to have a full clash with the U.S. and its allies, even as American troops in a town on Poland’s border with Ukraine organize the delivery of weapons to Ukrainian forces. The fear in Europe, however, is that Russian officials might come to believe that they can attack a NATO ally without having to fear that the U.S. will intervene.
“If the strongest member of this alliance questions the credibility of Article 5, the very raison d’etre of this alliance?” a second senior European official, an ambassador to NATO, told the Washington Examiner.
The remarks turn on the failure of European governments to fulfill their obligation to spend 2% of their GDP on national defense. The allies adopted that spending target at a summit in 2014, but many governments failed to make progress toward that benchmark, which set the stage for a contentious atmosphere during Trump’s presidency.
“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said Saturday. “I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ Let’s say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”
The comment drew a cascade of trans-Atlantic criticism and rebukes from President Joe Biden and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, the lone remaining opponent in the race for the GOP nomination.
“He correctly calls on member countries to spend more on defense, but he also calls on Russia to attack,” Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Pawel Zalewski told Politico’s European affiliate. “This is completely incomprehensible.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s team also offered a rejoinder. “Any suggestion that encouraging Russia to invade our allies and partners [is] dangerous,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. “I would just say, as we often say, that the NATO alliance provides actual security to the American people. This isn’t just a benefit [for the other allies] — this isn’t just an alliance that the United States puts into. We also get a lot out of this alliance.”
The dividends include a network of military bases across Europe that enable U.S. forces to project power far from American shores, according to a retired Army general.
“We depend on access in Europe, with bases in almost every country in Europe and all around the Mediterranean,” retired Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army Europe, told the Times. “These bases are important for us and for our contribution to NATO. They’re not here to guard Germans. They’re here for us and also for what we do in Africa and the Middle East.”
The public nature of Trump’s comment left Western officials stunned, particularly as it comes against the backdrop of the carnage and war crimes in Ukraine. “Of course, I mean, we are all used to Trump and his outbursts, so it’s nothing new,” the second senior European official said. “But I would say that this time it was much more serious that he publicly said that in the middle of the war going on.”
The first senior European official agreed, emphasizing the idea that Trump could say he would “encourage” another country to attack an ally. “There’s a full-scale war, there’s atrocities … everybody can see the pictures,” the first official said. “There are some things about [which] you [should not be] joking. There are some things which, for comparison, you will not [say] with your closest friends who have had a very, very tragic event or situation. And this tragedy is happening at the moment.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The second European official acknowledged, on the other hand, that “NATO survived and actually survived quite well” during Trump’s term in the White House as allies increased their defense spending. But that memory can offer only so much consolation.
“The U.S. was actually doing even more to beef up European defense during the Trump years, but we also are aware that this time, the administration might be different,” the second official said. “There might be much more experienced people implementing the policies by Trump. So it is a new situation in that sense.”
