Why Doesn't TRUMP Like NATO? - VisualPolitik EN

The alliance between the United States and the European countries is not exactly having
it’s best moment. Donald Trump has made quite an entrance and has jeopardized the
relationship of these nations to an extent they could even break up…
We have seen that with the Paris Agreement…
And also with Donald Trump´s position towards NATO, the most powerful military organization
in history.
In this video, we are going to focus on this organization. We’re going to look at what
is happening with NATO? Why is Donald Trump criticizing it so much? What is the future
of this organization?
But before we get into all of that, let’s get some perspective…
(NATO: A LOOK BACK)
Shortly after the end of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took its
firsts steps. It was born in 1949 with a very clear mission: restrain, stop, and if needed,
defeat the Soviet Union.
The Cold War had just started and there was an atmosphere of tension. The Berlin blockade
had already taken place and the Czech Communist Party had completely taken control with a
coup d´etat.
At that time, nobody knew what was going to happen, and the possibility war was very real.
Let’s take a look at the historical context: the world had just gone through World War
II. Europe was destroyed and there was an absolute distrust on both sides.
The truth is, a war wouldn’t have been a surprise. And that was the situation that
existed when NATO was born.
In the beginning, NATO was formed by the United States, Canada, and 10 European countries:
France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway,
Iceland and Portugal. A few years later the Federal Republic of Germany, that is Western
Germany, would add up to that list.
The original purpose of the idea, its spirit, was to bring forces together. If a member
country were attacked, it was seen that all the members have been attacked as well.
All for one, and one for all. Right?
Yes, but also, not quite - there was plenty of small print.
(NATO AFTER THE COLD WAR)
However, that all changed in 1991. The fall of the Soviet Union left NATO with no clear
purpose.
Without an enemy, what is the point of the alliance? That is a question many people asked
and many still do today.
But, wait, because against all odds, it was actually after the fall of the Soviet Union
that the organization started to play a more active role.
NATO first military intervention took place in the 90s during the Bosnian War and it has
taken action quite frequently since then: Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, the control
over the Baltic Sea, against piracy in the Indian Ocean and recently, support for the
fight against ISIS.
It was also during this time when more new countries signed up. Since it started, the
incorporation of new countries has been regular, but since 1991 incorporations have sped up.
There were 12 countries in 1949, today there are 28, many of these are countries from the
old Warsaw Pact, a similar thing to NATO, but led by the Soviet Union.
And Putin's Russia has never liked that…
In fact, the war of 2008 between Russia and Georgia took place partly because Georgia
country wanted to become a member of NATO. And something similar has happened in Ukraine…
And after the recent crisis in Ukraine and
the clash between them and Russia, NATO seems to have sped up again. In 2015, more than
36,000 soldiers were deployed in 30 different countries.
Also, in 2016, an immediate action force was set up. It is made up of 5,000 soldiers capable
of deploying very quickly in almost any place.
The so-called “Spearhead Force” has 5,000 soldiers that are part of a larger rapid action
force of 40,000 soldiers. In order to coordinate its deployment, the alliance has created,
since September 2014, eight support headquarters in all the countries that used to be under
Soviet influence.
And in 2017, the United States made the largest troop deployment in Europe since the Cold
War, following a NATO mission…
“Thousands Of US Troops Arrive In Europe
In "One Of Largest Deployments Since The Cold War" Reuters
We are talking about more than 4,000 soldiers and hundreds of tanks and armoured vehicles
already being deployed in Eastern Europe on a mission that reminds us of the initial mission
of NATO: to discourage Russia from any expansionist temptations.
However, despite all this activity, the role of NATO is still uncertain, and the United
States is still unhappy with the commitment from the organisations European partners.
(THE ANGER OF THE UNITED STATES)
As we were saying earlier on, the mutual defence guarantee if a member of NATO is attacked
is not as clear as it seems. Take a look at article 5, the one that regulates this situation:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them [...] shall be
considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed
attack occurs, each of them [...] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking
forthwith [...] such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”. Article
5 of The North Atlantic Treaty. “Including the use of armed force” …meaning
that if a country were to suffer an attack, it doesn’t mean the rest have to give immediate
military support.
And that is why all the Presidents of the United States since Harry Truman, have taken
advantage of the first NATO meeting they attended to interpret article 5, and have committed
with a military force.
However, Donald Trump hasn´t. He was expected to do so during the inauguration of a monument
for the victims of 9/11 in Brussels, where he attended his first NATO meeting. Indeed,
he was asked to do so by the European countries. The White House have said they would, but
a final commitment was not forthcoming.
There are analysts think this is a major issue, and they refer to this as one of the biggest
diplomatic mistakes of all time. Other analysts don’t think it is so important, but what
is undeniable is it hasn’t been well received in Europe. Especially for these reasons:
Up until now the only country which had invoked article 5 was the U. S. They did it after
9/11 and they received immediate support from all the members of NATO.
The thing is that Trump didn’t want to offer support, and actually he took advantage of
his speech to recriminate the alleged a lack of commitment of his European allies.
“Dissing Europeans while dedicating a monument to remember the 888 European, 158 Canadian,
and 2,396 American troops who died in Afghanistan took some doing”. Thomas Wright
But Trump is not the only one angry about it, Obama had the same opinion.
And the question is: Why is the United States so angry at NATO?
Well, basically because they claim that the European members of NATO are not committed
enough or don’t spend enough money…
(As a rule, all the NATO members have committed to spend on defense at least 2% of their GDP
on defense. However, only a few countries are meeting this compromise: the UK, Poland,
Estonia, Greece and, of course, the United States).
The rest are quite some way from spending that amount.
Just take a look at what Trump’s Secretary of Defence, James Mattis, has to say about
the European countries:
“Americans cannot care more for your children’s future security than you do”. James Mattis
Now, wait a second, does this mean that European countries don´t spend money on defense? Well,
certainly not.
In fact, if we add up all the budgets of all European countries that are members of NATO,
these countries spend $250 billion every year. So, if these countries were one, it would
be the country with the second highest military spending, after only the United States.
So, if it is money we are talking about…
it’s not that the spending has been reduced, or at least not relative to the threats the
world is currently facing. Times are different, and we don't live with the Soviet Union any
more.
(AN OBSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES?)
Let´s say it loud and clear: the world has changed and we are facing different difficulties
than we were in the 1960s.
The risk today is not the possibility of a great war. This risk has been reduced by globalization,
trade and mutually assured destruction.
The threats we face today are to be found in terrorism, piracy, cyber wars and the risk
of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Must we fight these risks? Certainly, but this is something that we won't accomplish
with more tanks.
We also need to consider that we are dealing with a very different kind of war today. Something
known as “hybrid warfare,” where combat isn’t like what we see in old movies.
Modern wars are more and more often about guerrillas and groups aimed at destabilising
nations. Further there is political pressure, economical penalties, cyberwar, interference
in election processes, intelligence operations et cetera… et cetera…
(THE MISTAKES OF EUROPE)
One thing is clear, NATO members are not doing everything right…
On the one hand, the organization has established more sensible conditions: 20% of the budget
should be spent on equipment. And here, even European countries which spend more on soldiers
than they need, still aren't meeting this requirement.
On the other hand, European countries are still quite disorganized and use very different
systems, which makes production, maintenance and deployment more and more expensive.
Look at what happens with tanks:
The United States uses mainly one kind of tank, the Abrams tank, while the European
countries use up to 19 different models.
Imagine the chaos when a joint deployment has to be organized. They can’t even share
the same replacement equipment! And the same is true for much more than just tanks…
The final question is: Can NATO play a significant role in the future?
In my opinion, yes, they can, but only after a bit of a perspective shift.
I personally feel we should spend money better and share resources, not spend more, even
though this might upset some military contractors… ;)
Well, now we’d like to know your option:
What should be the future of NATO? Do you think the European countries should meet the
US’s demands? Or do you think NATO should focus on less conventional warfare? Or maybe
you think NATO should just dissolve? Let us know what you think in the comments below…
So, I really hope you enjoyed that video, please hit like if you did, and don’t forget
to subscribe if you haven’t already, brand new videos every Monday and Thursday. And
don’t forget to check out the Reconsider Media podcasts - they provided the vocals
in this episode that aren’t mind. And as always, I’ll see you in the next video.

Why Doesn't TRUMP Like NATO? - VisualPolitik EN

Latest Posts