Trump sounds against NATO in the election campaign. As president, would he even defend European countries? The question behind this is why Americans should spend more tax money on defense than Europeans. But again, it’s not quite that simple.
In a campaign speech, Donald Trump once again unleashed one of his campaign hits: NATO and the Europeans’ poor payment practices. His message was: no money, no protection. Anyone who doesn’t pay cannot count on the USA to provide assistance in the event of a Russian attack. As usual, this caused violent waves on both sides of the Atlantic. US President Joe Biden called the comments “dangerous, stupid and un-American.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg hastened to make it clear that member states are obliged to provide mutual assistance.
The rules of NATO are actually clear: If one is attacked, for example by Russia, all are attacked – this is the innermost core of the defense alliance, as laid down in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. But no one can force a NATO state to fulfill its obligations as an alliance, not even the USA – treaty or not. Therefore, the mutual trust internally and the credibility of the partners externally are crucial for the strength of the alliance. Security expert Carlo Masala, professor at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, wrote on X: “The USA under President Trump does not have to leave NATO in order to weaken it. Such sentences are enough.”
But, asked heretically – what do the Americans actually get from NATO? Is it nothing more than a subsidy for the USA? Or does it help them too?
Protection
The USA is providing Europe with a nuclear shield. Specifically, this means that they would respond to a nuclear bomb attack from Russia, for example, with a nuclear counterstrike. This could end in mutual destruction and is intended to deter both sides. But the British and French also have nuclear weapons, which makes the deterrence even greater.
However, the USA is also the largest military power of all time. Never has a country been able to establish a presence in the world’s hotspots and carry out military strikes so quickly and so extensively. At least at first glance, Europeans seem to need the USA more than the other way around. But NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was right when he said on Wednesday: Nobody fights wars alone. Many conflicts are too big even for a superpower. However, through the alliance with the other NATO states, the possibilities increase even further. Not least because the US missile defense system is located in several European countries.
The fact that solidarity within NATO works was shown after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington. At that time, the alliance case under Article 5 was declared for the first time. NATO allies fought together in Afghanistan and proved that the duty of mutual assistance applies.
Leadership and influence
The fact that the Americans, with around 600 billion dollars, spend significantly more on defense than the Europeans with their now around 380 billion, also ensures them a leading role in questions of international security. This is particularly evident in the example of Ukraine. American aid will determine whether the country can continue its defensive struggle against the Russians. This ensures they have influence over the government in Kiev. What’s more, it was one of US President Joe Biden’s often overlooked achievements that NATO responded to the Russian attack on Ukraine in a unified manner. If the Europeans had been armed themselves, the Americans would not have this influence.
The military dependence of the Europeans, but above all the mutual trust, also promotes close cooperation in other areas. Be it cyber threats, pandemics, mass migration or climate protection. Neither China nor Russia have such a network. One can assume that they would like it.
Power projection and reach
Because NATO’s military strength is unrivaled in the world, Americans have the ability to “project” power. What this means is that their word carries great weight everywhere because in an emergency they would be able to back it up militarily. Having most of Europe behind you multiplies these possibilities. This also applies, for example, to joint sanctions by the USA and European states, even if these are formally imposed outside NATO.
The fact that the Americans have several bases in Europe makes this power projection possible. Whether Ramstein in Germany, Aviano (Italy), Rota (Spain), Souda Bay (Greece) or Incirlik (Turkey) – only thanks to this European network The USA has an infrastructure that makes rapid deployments possible, for example in the Middle East. The basis for this is NATO. If the alliance and its promise of protection did not exist, states would have less incentive to grant the Americans bases and corresponding overflight rights. Such bases also give US troops greater global reach.
Training and education
The war in Ukraine shows how important it is to be able to fight on land, at sea and in the air at the same time, i.e. to use combined arms. The Ukrainians are unable to do this due to a lack of material, and neither are the Russians. Both sides fail to gain air supremacy. The Americans have demonstrated their ability to do this in recent years and decades and have generally prevailed militarily everywhere – even if they were unable to create lasting peace in Iraq or Afghanistan. The US troops also have NATO to thank for their excellent training. It includes extensive maneuvers in which large and small operations are trained with the allies.
Armament exports
The size of the US Army would be unthinkable without a corresponding arms industry. The “military-industrial complex” is widely criticized – but is not least an important economic sector in our own country. The NATO partners are natural buyers of American armaments. Be it the F-16, which is still used in many countries today, or currently the F-35A, which the Bundeswehr has also ordered. Such arms purchases are, in a sense, part of the deal. Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently referred to the order for the F-35 fighter jets, which are intended to continue so-called nuclear sharing with the USA. No NATO, no order.
NATO is cheaper for the USA than war
Even if you buy into Trump’s way of thinking and focus primarily on finances, NATO is a good deal for the USA. In 2018, the US Senate questioned former US NATO Ambassador Nicholas Burns about what value NATO still has for the USA today. He pointed out that NATO played a crucial role in ensuring that Europe experienced the longest period of peace in its modern history. That is much cheaper than waging war there yourself.
During the First World War, the USA spent 14.1 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. During the Second World War it was 37.5 percent and during the Korean War from 1950 to 1953 it was still 13.2 percent. Whether the US spends two, three or four percent on defense, such sums are only a fraction of what an actual war would cost. Putin strives to prove every day that the danger is real.
So is Trump completely wrong?
None of this means that Trump is completely wrong with his tirades. His criticism is flat and oblique – so of course there is no “bill” that the USA could present to its NATO allies. Each state pays for its own army. But he is not the first US president to urge that Europeans invest more in their defense. His predecessor, Barack Obama, did this. This has to do with the fact that many US experts now see China as the big opponent and want to combine forces with an eye there. However, all experts seem to agree on one thing, including NATO’s biggest supporters: that Germany should put more money into the Bundeswehr. Because every alliance breaks down at some point when one side feels that the other side is not contributing enough.