Will the United States leave NATO?

On 10 February 2024, former US President Donald Trump said that he would support Russian aggression against non-compliant NATO members. This has raised concerns about the future of the United States' commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO. As the organisation commemorates its 75th anniversary, it remains a crucial facet of international security, despite Trump's repeated implications that the US might withdraw its support. So, what has sparked his comments? And could the US really withdraw from the alliance?

NATO's inception during the geopolitical tensions after the Second World War and its evolution beyond the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Cold War emphasise its longstanding importance. Spanning over 27 million square kilometres across various continents and comprising 31 members, NATO is a formidable entity with a combined defence expenditure of around US$1.26 trillion in 2023. However, Trump's rhetoric of an "America First" policy and the financial burden placed on the US has fueled debates about the necessity and strategic interest of the alliance in the face of contemporary global threats. Conversely, NATO advocates stress the increased defence spending of member states and the extensive strategic benefits to the US, such as collective defence, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic leverage. The world watches closely as the political landscape shifts with Trump's potential re-election, recognising that the US's withdrawal could significantly destabilise European and international security frameworks.

*MY NEW BOOK!*
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know

*SUPPORT THE CHANNEL*
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay, and here I take an informed look at International Relations, conflict, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, please subscribe. Even better, perhaps consider becoming a Channel Member. Thank you!

SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER

*VIDEO CHAPTERS*
00:00 Introduction and Titles
00:43 Military Alliances, NATO and the United States
01:38 NATO: Size, Location and Expenditure
02:25 The Cold War and the Emergence of NATO
03:59 NATO after the Cold War
06:20 NATO and the Trump Presidency
07:52 Trump’s NATO Comments February 2024
10:30 The Case for Continued NATO Membership
12:28 Is the US Preparing to Leave NATO?

*SOURCES AND FURTHER READING*
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty | 1949
NATO | YouTube Channel
US State Department
Donald Trump | Campaign Website
Trump Speech | 10 February 2024

*EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO*

*MAP CONTENT*

*DISCLAIMERS*
- The contents of this video and any views expressed in it were not reviewed in advance nor determined by any outside persons or organisation.
- Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.

#NATO #UnitedStates #Trump

[JamesKerLindsay]

Trump certainly provoked widespread outrage when he made his comments about not protecting NATO members who hadn't paid their fair share against Russian attacks. But how seriously should we take suggestions that he would withdraw the USA from the organisation if he wins another term? Do you support his views? And even if you don't agree with the idea of NATO leaving, are his criticisms at all justified? As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.

[mni]

One thing you left out of the video Prof is that the US Congress recently passed a bill which ensures that the President can not unilaterally leave NATO without the full approval of the US Senate. So even should he win, he would need a 2/3rds majority within the Senate to authorize it, and the approval of the house to pass that into law.

[rafaelthetoaster]

A problem Europeans have in general, when discussing NATO is never actually thinking about US interests in the matter. The fact of the matter is that the US is impossible to invade, or seriously attack given the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. Europeans try, unconvincingly, to tell Americans that their participation in NATO keeps them safe from the Russians, but no one, not even the Europeans I suspect, actually believe this. US interests are increasingly shifting to countering China, no European powers can project any military power in Asia any longer after the collapse of their overseas empires. This makes NATO a dead weight in our eyes as Russia is still in decline and couldn't touch us even if they tried their best, outside of mutually assured destruction. Europeans don't actually understand that the US is 100% capable of pulling back its world empire and watching the fireworks as the world erupts into conflict. Bad for business and the US economy? Yes. But much worse for the rest of the world, especially Europe.

In addition, European powers do not seem to make any economic concessions to the US, and make constant noise about decoupling, strategic independence, and turning the EU into a competitor against the US on the international stage. This combines with EU protectionist policies that have existed for decades with the explicit intent of keeping out US competition. So what exactly does the US gain from staying in NATO with free-riders that will never offer anything in return that a neutral country would not offer? Our Asian-Pacific allies, ROK, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, do not demonstrate this hostility and desire to create a parallel sphere of influence to the US. This is mainly for western Europe though, the eastern Europeans to my knowledge do not express this neo-imperialist mindset, as they were the subjects of empire until recently.

[markdowding]

Russia refuses to stand by its commitments in CSTO in regards to the attacks on Armenia by Azerbaijan and now Trump says he wants to withdraw from NATO. I wonder if this is just a coincidence or part of a larger pattern of changing geopolitics

[TheGreatOne-gwxh]

Usa shouldnt leave NATO, but europeans and canada really should be raising their military budgets.

[TiggerTheRed]

I don’t think Trump will actually withdraw from NATO. Love or hate him, he is right in saying a lot of members have dragged their feet on military spending. But most NATO members seemed to have gotten the memo now that most have met the 2% target.

[larynOneka]

Hopefully. NATO doesn't need to exist for the United States to help any country it wants to help.

[Abraham-ukxy]

It would be good they cut back support to force the Europeans to do more. The Europeans have been taking advantage since the end of WW2 which was more than 70 years ago

[tnnsboy]

Raise it from 2% to 5%, the EU has a lot to pay back!

[AndrewMann]

NATO could have been much stronger today if they took their own defense seriously in past years. They chose socialism and other liberal policies instead like green energy. If Ukraine relied upon Western Europe alone for help they would have lost long ago. It is time to grow up and pull your weight regardless of what Donald says or does not say.

[wadeburge]

America has protected Europe long enough for Free.

[ChamaraSumanapala]

Dear Professor. Can a "depository state" leave an international treaty? If so how? Isn't that also an issue here? Thanks

[Spartan-jgbf]

Most people don't realise that the US gains a net benefit from Nato . Firstly, Nato provides a huge market for US arms, secondly it means any conventional war against Russia is fought in Europe and not on the US homeland. Thirdly it means a rival European block cannot emerge to challenge US hegemony.
The situation is a lot more nuanced than Trump understands. Being a hegemonic power comes with costs.

[mikhailtrokhinin]

I hear a lot of reasons from this gentleman to vote for Trump.

[IanMcc]

I hate agreeing with Trump, but Luxembourg really need to up their game.

[Katyusha]

At the risk of sounding like a historical determinist, I do think the crumbling of NATO (i.e. America leaving) is inevitable.

The alliance made sense when the USSR was a threat to the interests of the US and Europe post-World War, but the world has changed since then - Europe is no longer a bombed-out husk, but a community of strong nations with interests (naturally) tied to their continent (not the Pacific.)

I think it's more likely that the Anglosphere will develop their own alliance system in the long-term (Canada, Australia, US, New Zealand, UK) whereas NATO will morph or rebrand into a sort of European-community alliance.

[coraxoiu]

love how you can talk about these topics without watering anything down while still being easy to understand and interesting!! great video ❤️❤️

[ernst]

It's time for those rich and snooty Europeans to get theirs.

[HTeo-oglg]

First of all, American expenditure for NATO is not 3% because the military budget included the more than 800+ military bases which are non-NATO bases.

[andrewsarantakes]

Excellent issue to discuss. The topic of US presidents commenting on the "free riding" nature of NATO allies goes back to President Eisenhower in the 1950s. Thirty years after that another example is in the 1980s when NATO was facing the massive & real threat of the Soviet army across the IGB, many NATO nations for example had less then a week or two weeks of war stock ammunition ready to be used to respond to a Soviet attack. So the concept of "free ridership" started when NATO was established.

To paraphrase Dr Mearshimer "states do not have alliances, they have individual intrests." This reality needs to be an understood fact in a pragmatic analysis & assessment of US-NATO relations.

The US has global commitments and for example Belgium & Portugal do not, so of course those nations will never spend to the percentage of GDP on Defense as the US does. However, we can look at what happened with Defense spending in the Baltics & Poland after 2014 & 2022. Their rapid expansion on defense spending as well as significant policy changes show their seriousness of demonstrating to the US their efforts to provide for their defense and not being seen as a "free rider".

Bottom line nations such as Germany, Portugal or Belgium have & are making conscious choices not to meet agreeded levels of spending. These are internal political choices these nations are making, thus it communicates to others their lack of commitment to collective defense to deter.

Trump's political allegorical story at a campaign event is essential politcal "red meat" being said in order to win the primary election. In reality the long held Jeffersonian political philosophy of isolationism is foolish given the realities of US history and economics in the world today. And to be honest the US doesnt take its own defense responsibilities serious when it is relying on a failed volunteer military service model versus consription. This, like some NATO spending levels, it is a internal political decision the US makes which absolutely shows the complete lack in the US body politic to provide for its own defense needs. The American people, like spending levels in some NATO nations, are "free riders" in their comfortable illusion that military service is important "as long as it is not me serving"

Again pragmatic analysis is necessary and seeing Trump is a theatrical stage actor replicating the "crazy man Nixon" role. Him playing this role is intended to get NATO nations to make different internal political choices.