It has become a common refrain among European leaders and military experts to doubt the commitment of the US to defending NATO. German Chancellor Merz, for instance, has expressed that he believes the Trump Administration is ’largely indifferent’ to the fate of Europe, while polling by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that public opinion now recognises that the US is no longer the ally it once was.
Doubts about America’s commitment to NATO are well-founded. Through statements about not defending all of its members, pressuring Canada into surrendering its sovereignty, blaming Ukraine for Russia’s war of aggression, and threatening the Denmark over Greenland in the State of the Union address (“one way or the other, we’re gonna get it”), the American Government has made clear that it cannot be trusted.
While NATO members are expected to honour their commitment and defend the US mainland, they cannot reliably expect the US to uphold its commitment to defend Europe. As this situation violates NATO’s core principle of reciprocity, it is worth re-examining the interests of NATO member states in continuing to promise to defend the US.
Threats to the Alliance
The United States is a volatile and unpredictable country engaged in a strategic confrontation with China and a growing appetite for enacting violence in what it sees as its own ‘hemisphere’. Thus, it is possible for the US to be caught up in a conflict which threatens to involve European countries - even when it is not in our interest.
This situation may already be happening in the Russo-Ukrainian war. China has reportedly expressed an interest in preventing a Russian defeat in Ukraine, on the basis that the ongoing conflict keeps US attention away from the Western Pacific. Although we cannot know for certain whether this reflects the thinking of the Chinese government, the EU has accused China of providing Russia with support that is essential to maintaining and sustaining its war effort.
In addition to becoming entangled in America’s geopolitical conflicts, European countries also pay a further cost for our relationship with the US: learned helplessness. European countries have become so used to relying on the US for military resources and strategic leadership, that - in many cases - their own capabilities have atrophied. Furthermore, many Europeans have come to believe that they are utterly dependent on the US on major foreign policy matters.
This perception has contributed to the unwillingness of the EU to support meaningful retaliation against adversarial actions of the US and an abdication of responsibility on basic foreign policy decisions. Meanwhile, desperate attempts by European leaders to keep America on our side also have the consequences of humiliating and delegitimising our political leadership.
Why Preserve the Alliance?
And yet, despite all of these problems, the written terms of our alliance are weighted to our benefit. Article 6 of the treaty specifies the area where NATO’s mutual defence is applicable, which includes North America, much of the North Atlantic, and Europe - but not the forces and territories of NATO member states outside of this Euro-Atlantic region.
This clause has allowed the US to avoid fighting in European overseas wars - including during Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands. Europe is protected by Article 6 from needing to participate in a theoretical American-Chinese war in the Pacific, while - on the other hand - any direct threat to Europe itself would, in principle, be a case for NATO’s collective response.
This NATO guarantee has deterrent value, even if we cannot fully rely on the US. The unpredictability of US policy means that a foreign adversary such as Russia cannot be certain that even Trump’s America would ignore aggression against a NATO country. Beyond direct US military action, access to the considerable American military-industrial base, military standardisation of equipment, and frequent joint technological developments remain a source of strength for Europe.
The Realities of American Politics
Our alliance with the US produces a psychological effect on the American side as much as it does on the European side. Leading voices within the Democratic Party are loyal to NATO and, while scepticism of NATO is increasingly widespread among Republicans, membership still retains some degree of goodwill towards Europe.
It is noteworthy, for example, that despite President Trump’s evident sympathies for President Putin, the US continues to provide intelligence support for Ukraine, approve European purchases of American arms for Ukraine, maintain sanctions against Russia, and uphold the military aid contracts for Ukraine that were initiated under the Biden Administration.
It is very likely that, if the US were not a member of NATO, American policy on Ukraine would look much different. Should the alliance between Europeans and Americans break apart, American politicians of all stripes would gain greater space to exercise their mental imagination for an even more indifferent attitude towards Europe - and, for some like Vice President JD Vance, an openly hostile one.
American foreign policy is not easily predictable over the long term. Europe must remain materially and mentally prepared to defend its interests, even in open opposition to the US. But it is also still possible that the American people will take steps to strengthen their democracy again, allowing the US to become more than simply an occasional geopolitical partner of convenience - in which case we could trust their commitment to NATO once again.
Acting in Our Own Interest
Taking all of these factors together, it is currently in Europe’s interest to maintain our alliance with the US - not at any cost, but as long as the advantages of this relationship continue to outweigh the disadvantages.
If the destruction of American state capacity continues apace, the US chooses to take a more aggressive foreign policy stance, Europe grows more confident in its own military capabilities, and the US pulls most of its troops out of Europe, there may come a time when the alliance with America will have truly run its course - and then we will need to find a way to disentangle ourselves.
Luckily, the best preparations for that eventuality are also the best courses of action we can take for our current situation. Europe should engage in a program of de-risking from the US. The EU’s Economic Security Strategy from 2023 should act as a baseline for protecting our sovereignty, but all dependencies on the US must now be understood as important vulnerabilities, including not just defence but our economy and even our informational environment.
If Americans return to the letter and spirit of NATO, Europeans would feel some sense of relief. But should the alliance with the US no longer serve our interests, we will be glad that we prepared to go it alone.
Follow the comments:
|
