Understanding NATO: American departure from organization would create very dangerous world. Part 2
Part 2 of 2
In his 5th Century BCE work “History of the Peloponnesian War,” Greek historian Thucydides offered a timeless summary of international relations with the line “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
That concept was international relations until the American-led creation of a rules-based international system in the mid 20th century with the founding of the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and a host of other international organizations. Today the hostility of President Trump towards many aspects of the rules-based system may return the world to a “might makes right” international system that has never existed in the nuclear weapons era.
According to MAGA “America First” dogma, the international system is rigged against the U.S. so the world is ripping us off. The only way to avoid ongoing victimization is by reducing or ending collaboration with allies who are cheating us in favor of isolationism and solo action when necessary. Withdrawal from NATO (and all our other defense alliances) is entirely consistent with this world view.
Leaving NATO, however, will have significant national and global security implications primarily benefiting China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. As regional powers they oppose the constraints of the existing rules-based system and U.S. influence in their regions. If the U.S. steps back from the global community they are the states who will immediately step forward.
The U.S./European Union (EU) trade and investment relationship is the largest in the world with over $1 trillion of annual business and roughly $3 trillion of direct U.S. investment while over half of foreign direct investment in the U.S. comes from Europe. Leaving NATO will quickly reduce or eliminate American military capacity in Europe and by extension our political influence there.
The economic value of our EU trade/investments may decline substantially due to increased security risks. NATO was founded to deter Russian aggression so it is the most obvious concern. Without U.S.-backed deterrence, history indicates the existential concerns of EU states, particularly those bordering Russia, are quite legitimate. Precedents for Russian aggression include Moldova in 1992, Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine in 2014/2022.
Elon Musk’s recent support for the German nationalist party (AfD) highlights the growing risk of something NATO minimizes — nationalist divisions and rivalries among EU states. With nationalist parties gaining influence in more EU states, the risk of future European armed conflict increases. To avoid NATO duplication, the EU has little military structure and no superpower leadership. It is simply less capable of suppressing the type of militant nationalism that culminated in World Wars I and II.
In our alliances, deterrence depends upon a credible expectation of a strong American defense. The U.S. has other defense alliances beyond NATO to consider such as Japan, South Korea and the Organization of American States to name a few. Abandoning NATO will make our non-EU allies less certain about their own security. A lack of faith will entice them to consider other more reliable security partners closer to home. China and Russia will recognize and act upon such opportunities.
Nuclear weapons are another way to increase security and maximize deterrence. The most worrisome consequence of the U.S. leaving NATO is the increased risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
With the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the nuclear-weapon states (China, Russia, France, Great Britain, and U.S.) sought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by offering general security guarantees to non-nuclear-weapon states. NATO is the practical framework implementing our security guarantees with a “nuclear umbrella” over all non-nuclear-weapon members to preclude the need for each to have its own weapons. A similar umbrella extends over our non-NATO allies.
Russian aggression in Ukraine actively undermines the NPT structure. Ukraine inherited the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world when the Soviet Union dissolved. In a 1994 deal with Russia, Great Britain, and the U.S. that it now deeply regrets, Ukraine agreed to renounce nuclear weapons and transfer them to Russia in exchange for explicit security assurances that Russia is violating. In the face of a military fiasco, Russian President Vladimir Putin is also making recurring nuclear threats.
If nuclear-weapon states adopt a purely “might makes right” approach by invading non-nuclear-weapon neighbors without consequences or threatening to invade Greenland and Panama, the NPT system is worthless. Non-nuclear-weapon states lacking a trustworthy nuclear-weapon state ally will quickly realize nuclear weapons are a highly effective deterrent to both nuclear and conventional attack.
In sum, American withdrawal from NATO will cost taxpayers more unless withdrawal coincides with a significantly reduced defense budget. NATO withdrawal coupled with increased military spending will result in more taxpayer debt for a less-stable world with diminished U.S. political influence from fewer friends but a much greater risk of nuclear conflict.
Brian Bengs of Aberdeen served in the Air Force and the Navy. Bengs is a retired U.S. Air Force JAG officer, and former Northern State University professor. He was the Democratic candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 2022.
Photo: NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, public domain, wikimedia commons
