Does NATO Need to Wean Itself Off The US?

The most recent NATO summit resulted in most members agreeing acquiescing to Trumpˋs "proposal" (a.k.a., 'demand') that its members commit to spending 5% of their GDP on defense which, broken down, means that around 3.5% of a given nationˋs GDP is to be committed to actual military spending while the remaining can be spent on infrastructure that supports the military in some way, shape, or form. The 5% goal is to be met by 2035. But the agreement may not be because of Trump made the request or that the leaders of those NATO nations thought that Trump was right.

To try to get his way, Trump has also levied tariffs on Canada and the EU, which includes most NATO members,  in order reach trade deals that produce favorable trade outcomes for the US. Trump's tariffs will hurt the economies of the NATO nations from which there is suppose to be an increase in military spending. This kind of mixed message is like telling a runner to run faster while injuring one of their legs.

We should also note one other thing. While Trump is not hesitant in slapping tariffs on allies, so far his tariff policies toward Russia, despite the horrendous atrocities that it visits on Ukraine, have remained unchanged--that is until recently. Trump has just threatened to apply tariffs to Russian imports if it doesn't agree to a peace deal in 50 days. Here, we need to remember why Trump received the name 'TACO,' which means Trump Always Chickens Out. Israel also gets a free ride here despite the atrocities that it commits against the Palestinian people. When one views both the attacks that Russia and Israel practices against their targets as well as the end goals of the two leaders of those nations, we might be tempted to regard Netanyahu as the Vlad Putin of the Middle East. Of course, the same can be said of Hamas. 

Having seen Russiaˋs invasion of Ukraine and noticing Russiaˋs renewed interest in its military resources near Finland, some in NATO are expecting a Russian attack on a NATO nation by the year 2029. And it isn't just the leaders of some European nations who feel uneasy with Russia, many citizens from those European nations have increased anxiety too. Because of Trump's inaction to Russia's war of aggression, we might also want to consider the question of how much does Trump owe Putin for his 2024 election win? Only a few journalists whom I have read or heard have considered that question. Putting all of that together, how much can NATO nations trust Trumpˋs verbal commitment to Article 5 of NATOˋs collective defense agreement is difficult to answer. 

Here we should note that there are 3 possible responses the US could employ should Russia attack a NATO member nation: do nothing while possibly talking a good game, rush in to defend a fellow NATO member nation, or attack NATO nations to show Putin that the US has undeniably aligned itself with Russia. And so was NATOˋs collective decision to follow Trumpˋs demand a recognition that they need to become less dependent on, if not totally independent from, the US in terms of trade and military aid?

We should note that Russia has already been attacking NATO nations. And it has been doing so in the same way that it has orchestrated the shift in the US's geopolitical alignment. My personal opinion is that many of the authoritarian with hierarchy movements rumbling through Europe and North America are tools of Russia. Evidence of that claim can be found in Russiaˋs support for such movements as well as their statements of support for Russia's aggression. The AfD in Germany provides an example here. These movements often employ a façade of being an ethnocratic movement in order to secure a base of support within the population, but the desired end of the candidates supported by these movements is to install an oligarchy. BTW, Russiaˋs oligarchy also presents itself as a religiously-based ethnocracy.

Will a Russian military attack  a NATO nation in the near future? Seeing Russiaˋs difficulties in Ukraine, an attack against a NATO member when NATO, not counting the US, is well-armed would seem unlikely. And so now we are looking at a doubled-edged window of time when it would be least costly for Russia to attack a NATO nation while NATO is still too dependent on the US to face Russia's military without US help.

We have one other consideration to mull over here. That is Europe's independence from NATO includes developing a coordinated nuclear deterrent which includes a new command post for the release of nuclear weapons. That command post would be shared by France and Germany. But what happens to that command post if what has happened in the US happens in one of them?

And so NATO members need to wean themselves off of their financial and military dependence on the US. That means that NATO members must find suitable markets outside of the US for their goods, increase their development and production of quality weaponry, and invest substantially into all kinds of research. To buy time, which includes appeasing some of the demands made by Trump, NATO members must continue to support Ukraine so that even if Russia should conquer Ukraine, as I believe is inevitable, its success in Ukraine will take long enough for NATO to buy time to become economically and militarily independent from the US.