Irwin Stelzer

Will Nato regret snubbing Donald Trump?

(Photo: Getty)

On April 4, Nato will be 77 years old. The chance that America will be counted among the celebrants when the birthday celebrations roll around is somewhere between nil and zero.

President Trump had long predicted that if America needed help, Nato would not come to its aid, even though, as he sees it, the United States has spent billions of dollars over decades defending Europe from Russian aggression. And when America did need help in the war against Iran – a few mine sweepers, please, sirs – the answer “no” came back in several languages.

Trump, who cannot legally exit Nato without Congress, will find ways to use his power as commander-in-chief to engineer a de facto exit by redeploying troops and assets

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer heard the call of what The Spectator’s Tim Shipman calls his “soul-deep belief in international law’ and denied America the use of the military base operated jointly by the US and the UK on Diego Garcia. Starmer since modified that absolute refusal with a carefully circumscribed permission, allowing use of the base for “defensive purposes” only, while continuing to promise he will not involve Britain in America’s war on Iran. That comes, as Trump sees it, too late, “We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won.”

Trump says he is disappointed at the “shocking” refusal to allow America the use of Royal Air Force bases. The President has at least formally invited King Charles III to visit Washington in April, as has long been mooted. If Starmer has clung to office until then, he can count on a seat well below the salt, absent a pardon from the President.

German defense minister Boris Pistorius rejected Trump’s call for assistance with “This is not our war, we have not started it…  To make it crystal clear, we don’t want to get sucked into that war.” Now that Iran has unveiled a missile that can reach Berlin, and Germany is feeling the consequences of the disruption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, he might be permitting himself a re-think.

Pistorius might find that he is a defense minister left out in the cold once Trump, who has been known to nurse grievances and believes vengeance is a virtue, turns from war to tariffs and to refocusing America’s military and financial alliances on the Middle East rather than on Europe. For one thing, even Germany will not reach its new 3.5 percent Nato spending target by 2029. Pistorius now predicts 3.05 percent by that date.

Others do not favor such lavish spending on their defense, and are in even less of a hurry when it comes to raising their contributions to Nato. Here is a list of countries and the plans they have made:

Belgium, 2.5 percent by 2034; Britain, 2.5 percent by 2027; France, 2.3 percent by 2028; Italy, 2 percent by 2028. Spain has a special deal with Nato to only contribute 2.1 percent, “no more, no less,” says Pedro Sanchez, Spain’s Prime Minister, who has denied America the use of the jointly-operated Rota and Morón bases in southern Spain.

Nato secretary general Mark Rutte saw no irony when, on March 26, he congratulated Nato members on recognizing the need for a greater contribution to the alliance. Many will not even reach the old 2 percent of GDP target, much less the new 3.5 percent target.

“Without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER.”

Even if Germany meets its 3.05 percent target, it will still need soldiers. An estimated 50,000 young people have taken to the streets in “school strikes against the war” to protest their government’s plans to introduce voluntary military service, with conscription possible if recruitment goals are not met. One young man told the press, “I don’t want to serve in the army. I would not go to defend Germany. If you had to choose between Germany fighting or being led by Putin, then I would choose Putin.” Putin, who is fluent in German after years of service in Germany as a member of the KGB, must relish such reports in the German press and adjust his schedule for the re-establishment of the Soviet Union accordingly.

In short, the Europeans told President Trump that, as American wrestler Bobby Heenan once put it, a friend in need is a pest. Trump has vacillated between admitting he wants, even needs, help and boasting that he does not.

What the “transactional” President really wanted from America’s European allies was an offer of help without being asked, a quid pro quo to which he believes America is entitled in return for bearing a disproportionate share of Nato’s costs. As was the case with Britain’s position concerning use of Diego Garcia, the belated and carefully circumscribed offers of help from other allies were too late and too little in Trump’s view.  As Trump told an interviewer: “We’ve protected them from horrible outside sources, and they weren’t that enthusiastic [about helping us]. And the level of enthusiasm matters to me.”

It matters enough so that Trump, who cannot legally exit Nato without congress, will find ways to use his power as commander-in-chief to engineer a de facto exit by redeploying troops and assets now devoted to Nato to areas of more direct concern, most particularly the increasingly wealthy post-Iran Middle East and on countering the threat from China.

So when Trump’s invitation to the Nato birthday bash arrives, the response may well be: “Best wishes, but I have pressing engagements elsewhere.”

Comments