In this message I want to look at a debate again from the beginning of 2024, when Trump suggested that he would not prefer defending NATO members who have spent less than 2% of GDP in defense. Here is something Tyler Cowen said at the time:
As you probably know, Trump threatened to leave NATO countries that would not meet The two percent of GDP defense budget obligation Taking care of himself against Putin (Video Here, with Canadian comments). Trump even said he would encourage the attacker.
Long -term Sir Readers will know I don’t love Trumpeither as president or otherwise. (And me am Very fond of NATO.) But about this issue I think it is in principle correct. Yes, I know everything about return effects. But so many NATO members do not keep track of serious defense options. And decades None of our jaw has worked.
Persoonlijk zou ik niet zijn doorgegaan of gesproken zoals Trump deed, en ik behandel de collectieve actieproblemen niet op mijn eigen werk en het leven op een vergelijkbare manier (“Als je niet klaar bent met voldoende publicaties voor een vaste aanstelling, laten we Bukele je nemen!” Of “Spinoza, als je niet stopt met het krabben van de bank, zal ik niet beschermen tegen de bank, ik zal niet beschermen tegen de bank, ik zal niet beschermen tegen de bank, ik Will not protect against the bank. The Coyotes! “). So if you want to regard that as a condemnation of Trump, so be it. Nevertheless, I can only feel that there is a room for an “unreasonable” approach about this issue, whether or not I am wearing that ball.
That’s a plausible argument, but I had one other display:
I believe that both Trump and Tyler misunderstand the role of NATO. The most important aspect of NATO is not the amount it spends on the army, but the role is to offer a mutual defense act that is so great that no nation would dare to attack his smallest members. In that respect it is a Smash success.
Consider the recent war in Ukraine, where Russia has been salemed for 2 years. To say that Ukraine is weaker than NATO would be an understatement. NATO has 31 members, many of whom are more individually richer and more powerful than Ukraine. As long as NATO stays together, Russia would not even dare to attack a small member like Estonia. In essence, it makes no difference whether Germany spends 1.4% or 2.0% of GDP to his army. NATO is ten times above impregnable, If it stays together.
But will NATO stay together? Late in his first term, Trump told assistants that he hoped to pull the US out of NATO in his second term. That is why Putin desperately wants Trump to win the elections.
In the past two months, events tend to confirm that my worries were justified. Consider the following:
1. The 2nd Trump administration is extremely hostile to NATO, with Important members Sugguing that the US is leaving the alliance. This despite the fact that most important members of NATO recently raised the expenses to a level above the 2% threshold required by NATO critics (see below.)
2. Yes, there is a reasonable argument that even 2% of GDP is too low, because the US spends more than 3% of GDP in defense. But Trump now requires at least 5% of GDP, a figure that he certainly understands, will not be achieved by countries that are already struggling to finance their large care states, and is one Clear pretext For the US to run away from the alliance. That is the kind of requirement that you do if you wants the alliance to fail. Trump lacks the legal authority to explicitly leave NATO, but he does everything he can to give the impression of one de facto Exit.
3. In the Ukraine War, Trump has changed American support From Ukraine and NATO to Russia. Before the elections, my critics pointed to the fact that the first Trump administration was quite difficult for Russia, which suggested that I was delusions to consider Trump as a pro-Putin. They did not understand that Trump has broadcast foreign policy in his first government to some regular Republicans. But during the campaign, Trump promised a radically different approach in his second term, a promise he has fulfilled. The US now votes with Russia and against Europe about whether Russia is to blame for the war. (Even China has abstained!) The American government calls Zensky a “dictator” but Putin refuses to call a dictator. Far from delusions, I actually underestimated the support of Trump for Russia. I expected that he would cut the financial support for Ukraine, but did not expect that he would unnecessarily hurt Ukraine in ways that the US government did not save money, such as cutting the sharing of intelligence and voting against resolutions that Russia convicted before the war.
Just like Tyler, I am “very fond of NATO”; I indeed consider it one of the best innovations of the era after the Second World War, an organization that has moved Europe beyond the destructive nationalism of the first half of the 20th century. I can imagine how a supporter of this kind of multinational organization could prefer its members to make the alliance stronger. That was Tyler’s position. But Trump is not in favor of multilateral organizations; He is a recognized nationalist. He opposes NATO, just as he opposes the EU, Nafta and even his own re -negotiated version of Nafta (USMCA).
If you claim that a controversial figure can have a valid point in a certain area, you must be careful that the valid point they have in mind is the same as the valid point you have in mind. In the case of Tyler Cowen, Donald Trump and NATO, I don’t believe that was the case.
Some readers agree with me about economics, but do not agree on foreign policy. So let me address that group with an analogy. Suppose you are the type of person who actually loves free markets, but does not take care of the Trudeau government at all and also believes that the US has a few valid complaints about the Canadian trade policy. What would the optimum American strategy be?
Perhaps the US government can quietly reach and ask to negotiate a few specific points again, which trades some favors to Canada in exchange for favors from Canada. I’m not sure if this was necessary, but I can see how someone could keep that opinion. Perhaps the US would choose to wait until after the Canadian elections, because the conservative party had a 25% lead in the polls that grew over time.
Now consider the effects of the recent trade war in the US and Canada:
1. The Canadian elections are now a dead heat, almost complete because of the fact that the Canadian public is furious about bullying. The party you prefer, might lose an election that was a lock weeks before.
2. An anti-American mood in Canada makes it very difficult for every Canadian government to offer trade concessions; Much more difficult than it would have been if the administration had a sincere wish to work calmly and together in the direction of a win-win solution.
So what’s my point? It is not enough to say that you do not like the current structure of NATO, or you do not like the current structure of global trade. Not every critic of those structures will offer constructive solutions. Some critics are nihilists, who just want to blow it all up and start again.
Many people do not like international organizations. But I suspect they will be missed when they are gone. If smaller countries cannot rely on military alliances, they must develop their own nuclear deterrent. Do you want to see a world with dozens of nuclear forces?
What could go wrong?
Here is the estimate of the BBC from NATO military editions: