Since his return to the White House – Trump seemed to be the reluctance of the historical demolition of “NATO”, and reports from American and Western media platforms, in the industry of news, have been frequently rejected by the possibility of the United States of America leaving NATO, or reducing its obligations to the organization significantly.
It is also expected – if these reports are valid – the alliance will redefine its identity, as a European security and military alliance, separate from its previous identity, which it had with the United States.
The fact is that the coarse, the word and the public among the American Trump on the one hand, and Zelinski with all his European load and symbolism, on the other hand, on Friday night, February 30, and expelled the latter from the White House, in a rare behavior far from the diplomatic custom, it was not in its real concern, unlike the deal of Ukrainian minerals, or refusing to go down at Putin’s conditions with coercion, but rather an expression of the history of the history NATO since its foundation in the late 1940s, Thomas Friedman carried not to hide his shock, and his direct hint that Trump “plays a Russian agent on TV”!
European officials were aware when Trump was elected that the basic principles of the regime that followed the Second World War would be threatened, and they felt dismay during the election campaign when he said that he would encourage the Russians to do everything they want towards NATO members who did not contribute enough, in his opinion, in the alliance, especially that – after the Cold War – many parts of Europe disturbed their tanks, and closed the factories that were the factories that were. Standard ammunition is made, believing that the wild war in Europe is now unimaginable.
Of course, Britain and France have independent nuclear capabilities, but they are only a small part of the size of American and Russian arsenals.
Some European leaders, including Macron, have begun to admit that Europe has slowly responded to the unanswered of the United States to spend more on its army and reinforcing it. These arguments are due to before anyone imagining that an American president may stand by Putin.
A recent report issued by the European Research Center Bruegel says that Europe will need an additional 300,000 soldiers, at a cost of about 262 billion dollars, to replace the entire United States in defense matters. The center concluded that “the numbers are small enough for Europe to replace the entire United States.”
“Let’s be clear: we cannot exclude America’s possibility of refusing to cooperate with Europe in its threat issues. Many leaders have talked about Europe’s need for its own army: the Army of Europe. I really think it is time. The European armed forces should be created,” said Zellinski before quarreling with Trump.
Bernard Henry Levy, a prominent French commentator and philosopher, believes that “Europe does not have a choice. The American President, Defense Minister and Foreign Minister told us that we cannot rely on the United States indefinitely. We have to unite or die. If we do not move, we will bear- within two, three or five years- a new Russian attack, but this time, in a country of the Baltic state, or Poland, or anywhere else. “
The fact that this was not the first time, that the question of the future of NATO, the headlines and mangcles of the newspaper, and how the world appears if it disappeared or without it, with every international or regional crisis, the division of which the largest unity of the security and military security organization in the world. Even such a question has raised the mockery of some, considers it to be distracted, or it is called every time, in which journalists do not find news, in which the pages of newspapers prevail.
On August 29, 2018, “Michael Rohl” wrote in the NATO magazine, grabbing such a question, and said: “Fifteen years ago, when the Iraq war led to the division of NATO allies, some even talked about the end of the NATO, veteran journalist Jim Hougland remained calm, and he said during a session of exchange of ideas with NATO ambassadors that the predictions of the imminent disappearance of NATO were present since A long time. Indeed, with a wink, some blame for his fellow journalists: Whenever we pass a slow news day in the Washington Post, we publish an article entitled “Where is North Atlantic alliance?!”
In the context, Trump was not the first to be the first American official, to threaten or blackmail the “NATO disappearance” .. In a speech in Brussels in June 2011, then US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned Washington’s allies that if they did not start paying more money to their security, NATO may one day become something of the past.
However, it disappeared – with time – threats, and the language of extortion … and the alliance remained present, because NATO – as Western security theorists believed – was the most important security deal, in the history of member states, and still retained the same importance, whether for Europe anxious from the possible exit of Washington on the one hand, or to America, towards the soft exit on the other hand.
The principle of collective defense remains – according to Article Five of the Organization – at the heart of the founding treaty of NATO. This principle remains unique and always linking its members together, obliging them to protect each other, and establishes the spirit of solidarity within the alliance.
Moreover, for many countries of the post -Soviet Union, which wants to show its independence from Russia through its relations with the NATO, the end of the American security role in Europe will constitute a strategic catastrophe. As the balance of the new power in the post -America stage in Eurasia would judge them to remain permanently in the field of Russian influence.
Moreover, it – urgent, not for the sake – will lose the United States – and most of its former allies – will lose their ability to cooperate militarily, and without the procedures and standards of the tested and tested NATO, even the role of the United States as a military power force “Leadership from the back” will become much more difficult than before.
If we look at the future, if the United States wants international support in a conflict with China or Iran – or any degree of international political cohesion on issues ranging from space to missile defense to Russian expansion – building this consensus will be much more difficult without NATO and similar alliances.
Not to mention that NATO will remain a “reality”. All successive departments for the White House must coexist with, due to the legislation that enacted in the national defense authorization law that restricts the American president’s ability to withdraw from one side of the alliances without Congress.
In short, the world without NATO will be a “bad deal” for the United States, its allies, and its partners in Europe and abroad, according to the estimate of Michael Rohl in the same NATO magazine.
The opinions in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al -Jazeera.
(Tagstotranslate) The American (T) Politics (T)) The United States of America