It’s no secret that Trump is an inexperienced statesman. The former real-estate mogul and reality T.V. star entered the White House having never held political office, the first to do so in more than sixty years. In such a case, policy fumbles are not surprising. What is surprising is that Trump is abandoning decades of foreign policy wisdom and presidential tactics in favour of his own “make it up as he goes” policy that has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.
This is best seen in his relationship with NATO. Trump has repeatedly attacked the organisation for its expense and relevance in the modern politics. In addition, he has repeatedly quarrelled, derided and criticised NATO member countries and their leaders, causing a significant political rift.
Before President Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin at Helsinki, he claimed that he was negotiating from a “position of strength.” What he frequently misunderstands is that the way to negotiate with Russia from a position of strength is with the force of NATO behind him.
Some context
The NATO alliance was born out of Cold War tensions. After the Second World War, communism rapidly expanded in Europe encompassing most of the East of the continent. NATO was formed by Western European countries and the U.S. to counter-balance this growing influence.
In other words, one of NATO’s primary functions was (and still is) to limit the power that Russia has over Europe. Together, the U.S. and its European allies can wield their conjoined power to ensure that such countries could not be dominated by Russia.
This is something that Russia, and the former U.S.S.R. has always been keenly aware of. In fact, they attempted to counter balance NATO with the Warsaw Pact, which was a similar alliance between Communist Bloc countries. What has been truly impressive about NATO is that it has been largely successful in containing Russian power.
How has this worked in the past?
There are two key examples of how the U.S. has been able to use NATO to negotiate with Russia or the U.S.S.R. from a position of strength. The first was the Treaty on the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (1990). Negotiated in the final years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the treaty set limits on the level of armament across Europe. After years of Cold War tensions, these talks finally persuaded the U.S.S.R to commit to reducing their stockpile of nuclear weapons. This set the stage for a more secure post-Cold War Europe.
The second example came after Russia’s intervention in Crimea 2014. In response to the Russia’s annexation of Crimea, NATO upped military spending and added troops, largely stationed in Eastern European countries. Though this did not cause Russia to reverse the annexation, it sent a clear united message that aggressive action would only be tolerated so far.
What does Trump’s pushing away do to the organisation?
Trump’s continued bashing of NATO and its members undermines a valuable alliance that has allowed the U.S. to successfully force Russia to toe the line for decades. It’s the strength in numbers rule; the U.S. alone (while still powerful) is not as strong as the U.S. plus Europe’s most powerful countries.
A troubling political landscape lays before the U.S. as Russia is once again seeking to expand its power and influence beyond its borders. In some cases this is explicit, the annexation of Crimea; in other cases it far more underhanded, hacking the U.S. election. The U.S. needs its European allies more than ever, and Trump instead Trump is rocking the boat.
