Trump’s latest effusion on NATO has understandably and rightly caused a lot of debate and alarm – even though I am sure the exchange he described never happened.
So, let’s start with the quote from a typically rambling, incoherent campaign rally at Coastal Carolina University.
“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?’ 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.”
Why can we know it’s made up? For many reasons, but let’s start with the telltale use of that word ‘Sir’. When he tells a tale where someone calls him ‘Sir’ it means he’s making up an imaginary exchange. This is well known by Trump watchers, and has been for years, as the ultimate long-time Trump fact checker, Daniel Dale, puts it, “A “sir” is a flashing red light that he is speaking from his imagination rather than his memory. In poker parlance, it’s a tell.” https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/sir-trump-telltale-word-false/index.html
Secondly, heads of state do not call other heads of state ‘sir’ – as their nation’s senior representative they do not use terms that subordinate their country to another. This is especially so in a forum like NATO, where consensus rules and each country sits around an oval table arranged in alphabetical order. The US maybe first among equals, but they are still equals and address each other as such. Can anyone imagine a ‘president(s) of a big country’ – Merkel, Macron et al – calling Trump sir?
Thirdly, in NATO forums, ministers, heads of state, ambassadors, etc, never stand up to speak. They sit around that oval table and use the microphone in front of them. As a staffer I’ve been in multiple summits, ministerials etc, so I know. All this is before we consider whether the president of a big state would admit to being ‘delinquent’, which also ignores that NATO is not some club with a subscription fee, so you can’t be delinquent.
So, what Trump described never happened.
Am I using a steam hammer to crack a nut? After all, we all know Trump’s a rambling liar who throws out this kind of stuff don’t we?
Well, I think it does. Remember before 2016 how we were told we should take him seriously but not literally? Well that turned out well didn’t it, as we discovered he needed to be taken both literally and seriously. But, even more, when did we get to the point where we should shrug off or ignore candidates for high office routinely making stuff up?
That’s what his Republican flunkies are saying. Former Republican critics, like Senator Marco Rubio, who last year sponsored a law that prevented any U.S. president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without consent of the Senate, said he had “zero” concerns about Trump’s comments and argued they were being misinterpreted, “He doesn’t talk like a traditional politician, and we’ve already been through this. You would think people would’ve figured it out by now.”
Yeah, right. Isn’t this the problem? Trump and his flunkies have successfully gaslighted far too many people that because ‘Trump is being Trump’ it means he can say things without harming himself that would destroy other politicians. Given the unique powers of the President, then character, not just policy, should be a factor.
The right headline for this story would have been along the lines of ‘Trump makes up story about encouraging Russia to invade NATO countries’. Then both aspects would rightly be in play – a man who lies at the drop of a hat, and the mindset and intent it reveals.
So let’s turn to the content itself. The exchange may have been imaginary, but what it revealed about Trump’s mindset was alarming and dangerous.
Another Republican senator, Thom Tillis, rather ingenuously said, “Obviously, that is not something I believe that he should have said but also I don’t believe it’s something that he honestly believes.” Well, given Trump’s record on NATO, it may well be something he honestly believes.
Regardless, what it does do is throw doubt – lots of it – on the reliability of US commitments to NATO if Trump regains power, and that undermines the deterrence on which NATO’s success rests.
In my presentations on Strategic Communications (StratCom) I highlight what I call the 3Cs of successful deterrence. If you want to deter an adversary from attacking you in the first place then there are 3 elements: Credibility, Capability, Communication.
Credibility is the will to defend yourself; Capability is the means to defend yourself; Communication is signalling to any potentially adversary you have the credibility and capability.
Trump has damaged each leg of this three-legged stool.
On credibility, by actually saying he would encourage Russia to attack NATO members then Trump has undermined Alliance credibility. Whether it’s bluster or not, to even throw it out there, the certainty of US commitment is reduced. A potential adversary is now encouraged to factor in whether they could attack a NATO nation and the US would stay out.
On capability, the fact is NATO’s ability to resist a major adversary – Russia – depends on US military power. Trump is far from the first US president to rightly criticise Europe’s lack of defence spending. Trump’s posturing has even had some positive effect on getting defence budgets, but the fact is European defence spending started rising in 2014 and was more due to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – something accelerated by his second invasion in 2022. A lot more countries now meet or are close to the 2% of GDP defence spending pledge. However, be that as it may, the fact remains European defence spending and capability is still way off the mark, even if it is getting better, and will stay that way for years to come.
On communication, then signalling that credibility and capability looks a lot harder today doesn’t it? Put yourself in Putin’s shoes, or indeed any other NATO unfriendly group. If Trump gets back in office, does NATO look more or less credible and capable? The question’s rhetorical.
We should also bear in mind the degree to which NATO’s mutual defence commitments rely on credibility. The critical element is of course Article 5, which states, ‘an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all’. However, it goes on to state the members shall respond with ‘such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force’. So even if a nation, say the US, accepts there’s been an armed attack it is not obliged to ‘deem necessary’ using armed force.
So, it’s not a given any nation would use armed force in an Article 5 situation, but it’s been assumed they would, and I think correctly. With regard to a Trump-led US, is that assumption, the basis of NATO credibility, as credible? Then, if the US does not deem it necessary to use force, does the rest of NATO have the capability to resist a major adversary? And, all these question marks over NATO’s credibility and capability are being communicated to potential enemies.
The reality is that any adversary, would still be taking a major risk – Europe’s lesser defence capability compared to the US is still hardly negligible. However, an equal reality is that deterrence is being weakened, and that means the risk of war has risen.
The three-legged stool of the 3Cs is wobblier than it was, so the stakes in this November’s presidential election are very high for us all.