[ad_1]
BRUSSELS – NATO leaders had feared that President Trump would not invoke the right words to convince Russia that the United States was still serious in defending the United States. ;Europe.
Now they are worried about something bigger: a total collapse of the alliance, or at least a weakening of Washington's security commitments, which would make NATO come out of it profoundly damaged.
Trump aggression this week. First, he is heading for a summit of NATO leaders, where he should continue to complain that Europeans are loosening up on defense spending. A few days later, he sat down with Russian President Vladimir Putin for their first one-on-one summit. European leaders are worried that Trump could negotiate their security in the name of better relations with the Kremlin.
European Council President Donald Tusk warned European leaders last month that, according to Trump's language, the allies could no longer badume NATO. NATO diplomats joke about whether Trump and Putin could unveil a global alliance that led to the First World War. Others contemplate the legal architecture of a NATO in which the United States is no longer the preeminent actor.
"The biggest of the allies is not only disagreeing with us, but he seems to want to leave," said Tomas Valasek, a former Slovak ambbadador to NATO who heads Carnegie Europe, a group of Brussels reflection. "Deterrence has already been broken."
These sentiments are based on Trump's words and actions over the last few weeks because he has more fully embraced his own foreign policy instincts after a first year of being restrained by more conventional. aid. Few people think that Trump would withdraw from NATO – at least they think it would be restricted by Republican partners in Congress. Europeans fear a repeat of last month's Group of Seven summit in Canada, when Trump beat leaders of Washington's closest allies, then withdrew his signature from the bromide-filled statement that comes from such meetings, of course.
Only this time, there could be immediate security implications.
"It's one thing he's going to the G-7 and is rude to people," said a NATO diplomat. "It's another thing to derail NATO." The diplomat, like some of the other officials and politicians cited in this article, spoke of the condition of anonymity to explain sensitive diplomatic thinking
. crisis, said another top European official, adding a word of color for accentuation.
Trump has already said that he's looking for a fight.
"I'm going to tell NATO – you have to start paying your bills – the United States is not going to take care of everything," Trump said at a rowdy rally in the United States. Montana last week. "Last month, he sent letters to leaders whose countries are not honoring their pledges of spending on NATO's defense, warning that the US could cut them off if they do not do it. ". t pour more money into their armed forces. And he asked why the United States should face a trade deficit with the countries that they are spending to protect, suggesting that it could use security guarantees as currency trading in the talks commercial.
Europeans say that rhetoric is already detrimental to the security of the alliance. because part of the deterrence of Russia and other potential adversaries requires leaving no doubt that if only one member is attacked, each country will come to his aid.
But leaders and diplomats fear that Trump may soon go further to undermine the alliance. They fear that it may stop US participation in military exercises in Eastern Europe to avoid "provoking" Russia, since it has made a similar concession on joint exercises with Korea. South after meeting with Kim Jong Un. They fear that it may attract the US military presence in Europe, which could disturb the security of the United States and reach the border with Russia
. Their nightmare is that Trump could kiss Putin at the top by recognizing the annexation of Russia. Crimea, emboldening nations around the world to redraw borders by force.
"It's such a fundamental question," said a top NATO diplomat. "This would legalize a whole series of actions.If you have the power, raw conventional military power, you can do what you want."
"Now I'm depressed," added the diplomat. "The fact that we even thought about it."
US diplomats negotiating the contents of the agreements before the summit say they have not received any instructions that would emerge from decades of US foreign policy. On paper, at least, Trump should condemn Russian behavior in Ukraine, endorse collective defense and sign a series of new plans that would expand US military activity in Europe, without decreasing it
. and a pivotal summit, "US ambbadador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison told reporters last week. "NATO does a lot of things that the president has asked them to do."
But Trump himself seems to want to take a different direction. At the G-7 summit last month, he suggested that the 2014 annexation was legitimate because most of the inhabitants of the Crimean peninsula were Russian-speakers. According to a person who was in the room at the time, the leaders were pushing hard but did not seem to be moving forward,
The recognition of Crimea would undermine the basics of Western action against the Kremlin since 2014, including including sanctions and reinforcement of NATO along the Russian border. This would violate US commitments to Ukraine, since Kiev received guarantees in 1994 that Washington would protect its territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine abandoning nuclear stockpiles of the Soviet era. .
And it would be a moral blow to NATO. about Trump and the reliability of the US security umbrella sparked a series of discussions among European leaders on how to respond. The European Union has reinforced its own security cooperation, creating an embryonic retreat in the event of NATO failure, for example. And even if Trump retains his signature of the final declaration of the NATO summit – an unprecedented decision for an American leader – diplomats who have thought about the possibility think that many of his most important initiatives would go from there. Before, since they have already been approved by the defense ministers. last months.
Despite fears about the future of NATO, most countries still spend too little on defense to be self-sufficient if they are deprived of US protection. The biggest culprit is Germany, the richest nation in Europe and Trump's favorite target for anger. Although Chancellor Angela Merkel has pledged to spend more on defense, the effort remains unpopular among German voters. The current plans would only result in three-quarters of the commitments she made to NATO leaders by 2024. German soldiers had to use broomsticks for s & b. Because they do not have enough rifles
. At first, many leaders hoped to find a single Trump mandate, but they feared he could be re-elected, giving him enough time for many of his policy changes to be permanent.
"It looks like we are on the verge of a new era, and we are not quite ready for that in the EU," said the politician
The speech of A coalition of NATO has become so bad that even NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's transatlantic disagreements, acknowledged fears last month, shortly after the G-7 summit. [19659026] "It is not written in stone that the transatlantic bond will survive forever. But I believe we will preserve it, "said Stoltenberg." The lesson of history is that we have been able to overcome our differences. "
Some diplomats say they are surprised by the gap between Trump's anger and the opportunity for an easy political victory at the NATO summit. Other NATO leaders, frightened by Trump, should increase defense spending by 3, 8% this year, extending a trend that began under President Barack Obama.When Trump took office, only four NATO countries have complied with the guidelines to devote at least 2% of their annual economic output to the This year, eight are in the process of doing so, and seven more are expected to do so in 2024. Prior to the summit, NATO nations also joined US security priorities in the fight against terrorism. Terrorism and Military Preparedness. 39 US Army seeks $ 6.5 billion for the 2019 budget, almost double the last year of Obama's mandate
"The only thing that can weaken the message is a kind of disunity" , said a NATO diplomat. I said. "If one wonders why the United States should be in NATO."
Even in the absence of a true withdrawal, the spirit of the alliance is at stake, many say here.
"If it's really a trade threat, that can destroy NATO's base," said Stefano Stefanini, a former NATO ambbadador to Italy and consultant safe in Brussels. "The basis of NATO is that security on the other side of the Atlantic is a common good."
Read more
The cover of the day by postal correspondents from around the world
Facebook and stay updated on foreign news
[ad_2]
Source link
