One of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most cherished strategic goals is to subvert and divide the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the bulwark of peace and security in Europe for three-quarters of a century. He came close to realizing that dream five years ago, when President Donald Trump, at a NATO summit in Brussels, threatened to withdraw the United States from the alliance if Europe and Canada did not spend more on defense.
Mr. Trump recently boasted about that threat in an appearance on Fox News, recounting that he warned U.S. allies that if they were “delinquent” on military outlays, “I will not protect you from Russia.”
A decision to quit NATO would be a strategic calamity not just for Europe but also for the United States. Mr. Trump’s threats should not be taken lightly, given the possibility that he could win a second term. Fortunately, the Senate has taken them to heart. Last month, it adopted a measure, with bipartisan support, that would block any president from withdrawing from NATO absent a two-thirds vote of the Senate or an act of Congress.
It’s critical that the Republican-led House of Representatives follow suit to make the measure law.
Worth remembering is the value of NATO’s collective security guarantee — that an attack on any one member of the alliance will trigger a response from all 30 other members. That promise, enshrined in the treaty’s Article 5, has effectively prevented any attack by a nation-state against a NATO member since the bloc was established in 1949. Article 5 has been invoked just once in NATO’s history — in defense of the United States — following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. NATO allies subsequently fought with U.S. forces in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power when it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden.
For Europe, the alliance’s collective security guarantee continues to stand as a deterrent against Russian aggression. The fact that Kyiv aspired to join NATO but had not been accepted into the alliance, despite a long-standing commitment to its accession, emboldened Mr. Putin to invade eastern Ukraine in 2014 and launch his full-scale attack last year.
Yet if the United States were to withdraw from NATO, the alliance’s deterrent credibility would be shattered. The U.S. military remains the world’s most formidable, and Washington spends more on defense than all of its 30 alliance partners combined. With U.S. participation, NATO is the most powerful military bloc in human history. Without the United States, it is a leaderless shell.
Hence the necessity for Congress to construct guardrails against U.S. withdrawal, which would be a wildly irresponsible act of foreign policy malpractice.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
The Constitution describes how U.S. presidents enter into treaties — with ratification requiring approval by two-thirds of senators — but is silent on how they can cancel them. In practice, the White House has not often been constrained by that ambiguity. President George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Mr. Trump withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned certain ground-launched missiles, and the Open Skies Treaty, which allowed Russia and Western nations alike to conduct observation flights over each other’s territory.
The Senate legislation that would impede any future president from pulling out of NATO was sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, and Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican. It passed with the backing of all Democrats present, plus 18 Republicans, who attached it as an amendment to the must-pass annual bill providing funding for the nation’s defense. But it might face a tougher path in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where many GOP lawmakers are loath to constrain Mr. Trump in a second term.
Skip to end of carousel
The former president’s loyalists in the House should think carefully about the danger in Mr. Trump’s threats, let alone the prospect of an actual U.S. pullout. Not only would that represent an epoch-defining victory for Mr. Putin; it would instantly imperil U.S. allies in Eastern Europe, leaving them in heightened danger of a Russian attack. The Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, would all be in Moscow’s crosshairs.
Elsewhere in the world, a U.S. departure from NATO would prompt allies to reassess their relations with Washington. Many might warm to China. U.S. security assurances to other countries would be degraded.
It is true that some NATO members fail to meet the alliance’s minimum target of spending 2 percent of overall economic output annually on defense. Mr. Trump was right to lecture them about that, as President Barack Obama also did, albeit less threateningly. Of NATO’s 31 members, just 11 are set to meet the 2 percent threshold this year.
But it is one thing to be annoyed with allies; it’s another to torpedo the alliance. Congress has a responsibility equal to that of the executive branch to protect and promote U.S. interests in the world. It can do so by enacting the measure in the Senate defense spending bill.
Mr. Trump recently boasted about that threat in an appearance on Fox News, recounting that he warned U.S. allies that if they were “delinquent” on military outlays, “I will not protect you from Russia.”
A decision to quit NATO would be a strategic calamity not just for Europe but also for the United States. Mr. Trump’s threats should not be taken lightly, given the possibility that he could win a second term. Fortunately, the Senate has taken them to heart. Last month, it adopted a measure, with bipartisan support, that would block any president from withdrawing from NATO absent a two-thirds vote of the Senate or an act of Congress.
It’s critical that the Republican-led House of Representatives follow suit to make the measure law.
Worth remembering is the value of NATO’s collective security guarantee — that an attack on any one member of the alliance will trigger a response from all 30 other members. That promise, enshrined in the treaty’s Article 5, has effectively prevented any attack by a nation-state against a NATO member since the bloc was established in 1949. Article 5 has been invoked just once in NATO’s history — in defense of the United States — following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. NATO allies subsequently fought with U.S. forces in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power when it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden.
For Europe, the alliance’s collective security guarantee continues to stand as a deterrent against Russian aggression. The fact that Kyiv aspired to join NATO but had not been accepted into the alliance, despite a long-standing commitment to its accession, emboldened Mr. Putin to invade eastern Ukraine in 2014 and launch his full-scale attack last year.
Yet if the United States were to withdraw from NATO, the alliance’s deterrent credibility would be shattered. The U.S. military remains the world’s most formidable, and Washington spends more on defense than all of its 30 alliance partners combined. With U.S. participation, NATO is the most powerful military bloc in human history. Without the United States, it is a leaderless shell.
Hence the necessity for Congress to construct guardrails against U.S. withdrawal, which would be a wildly irresponsible act of foreign policy malpractice.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
The Constitution describes how U.S. presidents enter into treaties — with ratification requiring approval by two-thirds of senators — but is silent on how they can cancel them. In practice, the White House has not often been constrained by that ambiguity. President George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Mr. Trump withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned certain ground-launched missiles, and the Open Skies Treaty, which allowed Russia and Western nations alike to conduct observation flights over each other’s territory.
The Senate legislation that would impede any future president from pulling out of NATO was sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, and Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican. It passed with the backing of all Democrats present, plus 18 Republicans, who attached it as an amendment to the must-pass annual bill providing funding for the nation’s defense. But it might face a tougher path in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where many GOP lawmakers are loath to constrain Mr. Trump in a second term.
Skip to end of carousel
The former president’s loyalists in the House should think carefully about the danger in Mr. Trump’s threats, let alone the prospect of an actual U.S. pullout. Not only would that represent an epoch-defining victory for Mr. Putin; it would instantly imperil U.S. allies in Eastern Europe, leaving them in heightened danger of a Russian attack. The Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, would all be in Moscow’s crosshairs.
Elsewhere in the world, a U.S. departure from NATO would prompt allies to reassess their relations with Washington. Many might warm to China. U.S. security assurances to other countries would be degraded.
It is true that some NATO members fail to meet the alliance’s minimum target of spending 2 percent of overall economic output annually on defense. Mr. Trump was right to lecture them about that, as President Barack Obama also did, albeit less threateningly. Of NATO’s 31 members, just 11 are set to meet the 2 percent threshold this year.
But it is one thing to be annoyed with allies; it’s another to torpedo the alliance. Congress has a responsibility equal to that of the executive branch to protect and promote U.S. interests in the world. It can do so by enacting the measure in the Senate defense spending bill.
