Trump threatening to leave NATO

Grey Havoc

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
24,413
Reaction score
17,872
Assuming that this is not an ill-judged April Fools joke on the part of someone at the Daily Telegraph, this does not bode well at all for the survival of NATO:
Donald Trump has told The Telegraph he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of Nato after it failed to join his war on Iran.

The US president labelled the alliance a “paper tiger” as he said removing America from the defence treaty was now “beyond reconsideration”.

It is the strongest sign yet that the White House no longer regards Europe as a reliable defence partner following the rejection of Mr Trump’s demand that allies send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Mr Trump was asked if he would reconsider the US’s membership of the alliance after the conflict. “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration,” he replied. “I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”

Nato partners have been reluctant to help reopen the strait, through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil typically travels. Tehran has effectively closed the strait for weeks, sending global oil and gas prices spiralling while threatening a global recession.

[snip]
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
Assuming that this is not an ill-judged April Fools joke on the part of someone at the Daily Telegraph, this does not bode well at all for the survival of NATO:
Click to expand...
He needs to read the pact. NATO is for the defence of NATO countries and to an extent wider Europe, it doesn't cover military action elsewhere. Didn't during the Falklands War and doesn't now.
 
Forest Green said:
He needs to read the pact. NATO is for the defence of NATO countries and to an extent wider Europe, it doesn't cover military action elsewhere. Didn't during the Falklands War and doesn't now.
Click to expand...
He doesn’t care, it’s as simple as that. He was openly hostile to NATO before and during his first presidency and that’s only increased. If it wasn’t the excuse of not following him into Iran it would just be something else. Question is does the Senate actually hold its ground if he tries?
 
sparky42 said:
He doesn’t care, it’s as simple as that. He was openly hostile to NATO before and during his first presidency and that’s only increased. If it wasn’t the excuse of not following him into Iran it would just be something else. Question is does the Senate actually hold its ground if he tries?
Click to expand...
He needs to take a course on Diplomacy 101, I mean literally a few weeks earlier he was mocking the support given by NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and now he's asking for then to join the Iran War. It's difficult to believe anyone who even has a job could be that stupid. It's a good job he inherited a lot of money.
 
By the time he is over, NATO will be a different organisation. Now mission and possibly rebranded which, ALL organisation love. Lots of consultations in nice surroundings and £500 'lunches' etc.

I could come up with a name for the current NATO but no self respecting silicon based entity would save it to long term memory.
 
Forest Green said:
He needs to take a course on Diplomacy 101, I mean literally a few weeks earlier he was mocking the support given by NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and now he's asking for then to join the Iran War. It's difficult to believe anyone who even has a job could be that stupid. It's a good job he inherited a lot of money.
Click to expand...
Add in his threats towards Greenland and his stance towards Russia and even a child could see why the European nations are going “no thanks, his one is on you”.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Applied after 9-11 and could apply now, what with Turkey (a NATO member) being attacked.
Click to expand...
Defensive requirement is dubious, since Trump initiated the action and has bases there.

The most likely way that NATO will get involved is if the strait remains closed for long enough. That's why it might be a clever(ish) move for Iran short-term, but long-term it could get real dumb real fast. Long-term closure would make a NATO removal of the Iranian regime a necessity rather than an option for European members. Who knows, maybe that was even Big Bird's plan all along.
 
Last edited:
Military tactics discussion.

The Falkland's INVASION was an attack on a NATO nation, article 5 should REQUIRE assistance to be given but I don't think the UK government made such a request.
I do not believe Türkiye or other nations in the region were attacked until AFTER this operation began so technically the Israeli/USA action could hardly be called defensive.

Should the current regime in Iran go? IMHO, yes. However there should be a clear and concise plan as for who takes over rather than "Take over your government, it will be yours to take" does not qualify. Repeating the debacle that was Iraq

However, the whole debacle has been sent to file 13 since it was ?planned? I want to talk about military tactics here rather than politics and tbh, none of this falls into the classic 'battle plan' with no (allied) nation involved in planning or execution anywhere I can see, no published goals for other HOS to peruse and clearly zero exit strategy.

When you fail to plan you plan to fail.

For how long will we all be paying for this debacle?
 
Foo Fighter said:
Military tactics discussion.

The Falkland's INVASION was an attack on a NATO nation, article 5 should REQUIRE assistance to be given but I don't think the UK government made such a request.
I do not believe Türkiye or other nations in the region were attacked until AFTER this operation began so technically the Israeli/USA action could hardly be called defensive.

Should the current regime in Iran go? IMHO, yes. However there should be a clear and concise plan as for who takes over rather than "Take over your government, it will be yours to take" does not qualify. Repeating the debacle that was Iraq

However, the whole debacle has been sent to file 13 since it was ?planned? I want to talk about military tactics here rather than politics and tbh, none of this falls into the classic 'battle plan' with no (allied) nation involved in planning or execution anywhere I can see, no published goals for other HOS to peruse and clearly zero exit strategy.

When you fail to plan you plan to fail.

For how long will we all be paying for this debacle?
Click to expand...
The Falklands doesn’t fall within the NATO treaty obligations, it’s areas north of the Tropic of Cancer that are covered by the Treaty.
 
sparky42 said:
The Falklands doesn’t fall within the NATO treaty obligations, it’s areas north of the Tropic of Cancer that are covered by the Treaty.
Click to expand...
Fair comment which I had forgotten but, article 5 still requires defensive action rather than offensive action and this whole thing was initiated by said NATO member.

Has the US government even tried to call for article 5 consideration?
 
Foo Fighter said:
Fair comment which I had forgotten but, article 5 still requires defensive action rather than offensive action and this whole thing was initiated by said NATO member.

Has the US government even tried to call for article 5 consideration?
Click to expand...
Why do that when the President can just whine on social media about nobody being willing to follow him.
 
Forest Green said:
Defensive requirement is dubious, since Trump initiated the action and has bases there.
Click to expand...
But those bases were not what was attacked. Admittedly that's a pretty fine line.




Foo Fighter said:
Has the US government even tried to call for article 5 consideration?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Because the US did initiate, and Article 5 quite clearly states "an attack on one is an attack on all" (emphasis mine).
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think so. Because the US did initiate, and Article 5 quite clearly states "an attack on one is an attack on all" (emphasis mine).
Click to expand...
NATO as a defensive alliance has no role to play in the offensive actions of any member nation nor the consequences of taking those offensive actions. Call us when Iranian forces make an amphibious landing in Florida.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
NATO as a defensive alliance has no role to play in the offensive actions of any member nation nor the consequences of taking those offensive actions. Call us when Iranian forces make an amphibious landing in Florida.
Click to expand...
Even when (to my knowledge) no attacks into Iran have come from Turkey?

Which means that Turkey got hit for no reason at all. edit: so unless I missed something major, Turkey could call for Article 5 for catching a driveby.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Turkey could call for Article 5 for catching a driveby
Click to expand...
For whatever reasons, the Turkish government has not called for it.
NATO missiles used to intercept Iranian missiles were stationed there years ago, to much chagrin of the Russian government at the time.
www.aljazeera.com

Turkiye says Iranian ballistic missile intercepted by NATO air defences

Ministry of National Defence says no casualties or damage after missile shot down over southern city of Gaziantep.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
Even when (to my knowledge) no attacks into Iran have come from Turkey?

Which means that Turkey got hit for no reason at all. edit: so unless I missed something major, Turkey could call for Article 5 for catching a driveby.
Click to expand...
Article 5 does not commit all NATO nations to declaring war on Iran in response to failed missile attacks.
if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Click to expand...
Given that all the missile fired were intercepted by NATO air defence assets, Turkey has received adequate support to maintain the security of the North Atlantic area without the need to invoke Article 5.

If it needed more help than it was getting to "maintain the security of the North Atlantic area" it could invoke Article 5 to formally request additional support.
 
Last edited:
Patriot deployment to Turkey in 2013 news:
www.rusi.org

Turkish Delight? The Deployment of Patriot Missiles to Turkey Poses Further Questions than Answers

The deployment of Patriot missiles to Turkey in response to the ongoing Syrian civil war makes sense strategically and underscores NATO's relevance. However, they also hamper Turkey's role to seek accommodation with her neighbours.
www.rusi.org www.rusi.org
The Kremlin, also having concerns over the NATO missile defence system, has sought to portray the Patriot deployment as an aggressive measure. After meeting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in December last year, President Putin declared in a Chekhovian fashion that, 'if a gun is hung on the wall at the start of a play then at the end of the play it will definitely fire'.
[...]
The US batteries, along with 400 troops to operate them, will be based at Gaziantep, 50 km north of the border. The German battery, accompanied by 400 troops also, will be based at Kahramanmaras, around 100 Km north of the border and the Dutch (with 360 troops) will be based at Adana, also around 100 Km west of the border. Whilst NATO is in overall charge of the system, Turkey will be integrated into the chain of command at all levels: from the batteries themselves to Command and Control in Ramstein, Germany.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
But those bases were not what was attacked. Admittedly that's a pretty fine line.
Click to expand...
ANKARA, March 13 (Reuters) - An explosion was heard and windows were shaken overnight near the Incirlik military base in southern Turkey where U.S. troops and others are ‌stationed, according to a Reuters witness and social media footage.
Click to expand...

If that were enough to trigger Article 5, multiple Russian drones and missiles have landed in NATO countries, passed through NATO air space, multiple air space violations by Russian fighters. Multiple Russian sabotage plots.... And Russia was the initial agressor in Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Article 5 does not commit all NATO nations to declaring war on Iran in response to failed missile attacks.

Given that all the missile fired were intercepted by NATO air defence assets, Turkey has received adequate support to maintain the security of the North Atlantic area without the need to invoke Article 5.

If it needed more help than it was getting to "maintain the security of the North Atlantic area" it could invoke Article 5 to formally request additional support.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that Article 5 doesn't require such an action, I am noting that 9-11 did get such a deployment out of pretty much all of NATO to a location well outside the usual NATO areas of responsibility.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not arguing that Article 5 doesn't require such an action, I am noting that 9-11 did get such a deployment out of pretty much all of NATO to a location well outside the usual NATO areas of responsibility.
Click to expand...
It did, but 9/11 was a pretty major "attack" on NATO soil and actually killed a lot of people, and bought the US some goodwill from its allies in assisting with dealing with the threat.

Hardly a comparable situation.
 
I think there’s been rumours for years that he partly wants to leave NATO so he can form an alliance with Russia to freeze out the Chinese. Apparently he’s not the only one who thinks that in the administration. But of course take all such things with a pinch of salt.
 
Foo Fighter said:
For how long will we all be paying for this debacle?
Click to expand...
Decades.

If Trump did leave NATO (highly likely), then the US might have to kiss goodbye to most of its European bases, or at least negotiate bilateral deals, but when even long-term allies like Spain (since 1955 in the Franco era) and Italy are closing airspace it's clear things have slumped to all-time lows and cooperation is not a given now. Trump has nearly exhausted all of the USA's goodwill with practically everybody.
I could well imagine Trump making a "give me Greenland and I won't leave" threat.

The impact on European security would be immense but its clear the forever on-off tariffs and love-hate social media campaigning (NATO didn't fight in Afghanistan, the Royal Navy is shit) have made collaboration almost impossible on any rational basis at the higher level, even though doubtless the lower levels of real people on the ground have a much more realpolitik view of all of this.

Given the Gulf States have only just realised that buying Western arms in return for hosting Western bases has painted a massive target on their backs, moving forwards lots of nations might begin looking at what defence infrastructure they are hosting and what that actually means if they are just written off as collateral damage.
 
Hood said:
Given the Gulf States have only just realised that buying Western arms in return for hosting Western bases has painted a massive target on their backs, moving forwards lots of nations might begin looking at what defence infrastructure they are hosting and what that actually means if they are just written off as collateral damage.
Click to expand...
If that wasn't part of the strategic calculus when they were debating allowing basing, that is their own fault.
 
Hood said:
If Trump did leave NATO (highly likely), then the US might have to kiss goodbye to most of its European bases.
Click to expand...
Allowing WWII to actually end, so to speak.
Hood said:
Given the Gulf States have only just realised that buying Western arms in return for hosting Western bases has painted a massive target on their backs,
Click to expand...
This could help push aerospace into supporting space solar power since this might finally end Cheney type war profiteering
 
Saudi Arabia has already seen the light...
The USA does not produce enough missiles to even meet the needs of SA at the moment.
The first shipment to SA is expected in 2027/2028.. That big is the backlog..
Also the missiles come with American soldiers included.. The US does not allow their weapons systems to be operated by SA alone...
So now SA is going to shop in the UK and France, who provide similar systems and way more relaxed conditions...
But getting is all operational would take until 2028? even if they bought it right now..
Training and certification takes a while..
But SA is willing to switch, especially after trump called out that the crown prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud( Or Mbs, the defacto ruler of SA) was his servant, embarrassing him in public... To say he was not pleased is an understatement. The final nail in the coffin was trump reminding him to sign the Abraham accords at a time when Israel is very aggressive towards Arabs ( Gaza and Lebanon), the crown prince was put into a impossible and again embarrassing situation.. I think he choose to look elsewhere for defense spending, away from an unstable partner.. Luckily MbS is known to be a forgiving and pleasant figure to do business with...
 
publiusr said:
This could help push aerospace into supporting space solar power since this might finally end Cheney type war profiteering
Click to expand...
Keeping dreaming. That does nothing to change a bad ROI into a good one.
More unsubstantiated accusations. What "Cheney type war profiteering"?
Plus those were non aerospace companies anyways.
 
This line of thinking is quite disingenuous, because the vassalization of Europe has always been desired and worked towards by the US. If Europe would "stand on it's own legs" that would mean the US would lose the last bit of influence across the pond, would mostly be on the losing side of military contracts in the old continent and would, after losing their grip on the near east and east asia, be mostly relegated to the Americas. While that would arguably be a net benefit to the entire world, it's more than doubtful that US politicians would desire that outcome.

So no, the US doesn't want Europe to be independent, the US just wants these juicy €€€ in their pockets and sell their overpriced and in many regards underwhelming weapons systems to guilable Europeans after some serious lobby work. That's a more accurate description of what the US seeks to achieve with empty threats of leaving NATO (their biggest platform to gain leverage over the majority of western nations). They benefit by far the most from the alliance and thus it's only logical that they spend the most money. Because ultimately NATO is not a defensive alliance or anything idealistic like that (probably a hard pill to swallow for people around the age of 40-50 who grew up with that Image), it's a platform to influence and shape relations between the US and western aligned nations within the organization. That can take the shape of providing basing, which the US always happily utilizes, but it can also take the form of the sales of military equipment, exercises or the US influencing foreign policy to their benefit through the NATO framework.
 
Last edited:
Hydroman said:
We the US have been financing NATO for to long, Trump is right on this account, Europe needs to stand up and grow a pair. I know why the UK and France has not committed to the Iranian conflict, do the math.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is just the rest of the world is getting tired of being dragged into "endless" US wars which have little upside for those involved other than the US.

Regards,
 
Hydroman said:
We the US have been financing NATO for to long, Trump is right on this account, Europe needs to stand up and grow a pair. I know why the UK and France has not committed to the Iranian conflict, do the math.
Click to expand...

If Europe "stands on its own", it automatically becomes an adversary at least as dangerous as China, and likely more so.

Before 1941, the United States genuinely expected wars in both oceans and it sort of got them, except the UK was an ally rather than an adversary. If it leaves NATO, it can expect that again, because the adversarial relationship between Europe and America (that spawned the Monroe Doctrine) is the natural outcome of Euro-American geopolitics. It requires a great deal of maintenance, mainly on the American side, to keep from becoming a reality. There's little reason for Europe to prop up American goodwill now that the USSR has collapsed and Russia is a paper tiger.

They have no enemies left. Well, they used to not have enemies. They're looking at another USSR forming now.

You might compare it to maintaining a lawn. If you stop maintaining that lawn it becomes a nesting ground for hares, snakes and dandelions. America has spent every decade since 1945 maintaining its North Atlantic lawn by keeping Europe's economic growth and industrial development suppressed through organizations like the IMF and now the WTO, just look at Airbus, and now it has suddenly decided it no longer wants to do this. Even NATO is an organization designed to suppress European armed forces and keep them weak, dependent, and requiring American aid. That's leverage. You can threaten to yank the chain but if you let Europe solidify itself, that chain yanking won't work. You'll just make an enemy.

It's the same thing America did when it let China have free trade deals in the 90s. It may not be super apparent now, but check back in 30 years, and we might see America sitting pretty in the top five but maybe not the top three of arms manufacturers in the world. Which is very strange, but perhaps predictable, as Europe is already outproducing the United States in most relevant armaments in Ukraine. It would be trivial to outproduce it in every other armament, with the exception of strike fighters and warships or submarines. China can do that, though.

It is probably better in the long run for the United States to continue to court good relations with Europe, regardless of the catharsis of returning to a world surrounded by enemies, if only because the United States does not have the economic nor industrial capacities to militarily handle two opponents with equal economies to itself if they begin to work together to cover their mirrored weaknesses with mutually supporting strengths. Europe makes great radars, missiles, and tactical ground force weapons, but Dassault can barely cobble together two dozen jets a year and the entirety of Europe might churn out two strike carriers in as many decades. China makes rather poor tanks, shells, and relatively lame missiles, but a ton of warships and jet aircraft.

Perhaps future Americans will find themselves on the other side of 1898, or even 1848, sooner rather than later if that comes to pass. But hey, at least we wouldn't be "subsidizing Europe" or "financing NATO", whatever that means. It's not like your tax dollars pay for anything these days. American taxes haven't paid for anything since 1971 at least, and 1929 at most.

It's a remote threat but it's not that remote: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/eu-china-relations-after-the-2024-european-elections-a-timeline/

Regardless, much like the budget, leaving NATO is Congressional decision. It's highly unlikely to pass given how midterms are shaping up.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
If Europe "stands on its own", it automatically becomes an adversary at least as dangerous as China, and likely more so.
Click to expand...
It would be, if Europe was allied with Russia. Combined economical, natural, population resources & military power "from Lissabon till Vladivostok" would actually form a superpower rivalling US and China. But in current state of politics, such alliance is only possible in remote future. And by itself neither Europe nor Russia have superpower potential anymore.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom