Since his return to the White House – Trump seemed to be the reluctance of the historic demolition of “NATO”, and the reports of American and Western media platforms, in the news industry, have been frequently rejected by the possibility that the United States of America leave NATO, or considerably reducing its obligations to the organization.
It is also planned – if these reports are valid – the alliance will redefine its identity, as a European security and military alliance, distinct from its previous identity, which it had with the United States.
The fact is that the coarse, the word and the public Among the American Trump on the One Hand, and Zelinski with all His European Load and Symbolism, on the other hand, on Friday Night, February 30, and Expelled the Later from the White House, in Rare Behavior Far from the diplomatic Was not in its real concern, Unlike the Deal of Ukrainian Minerals, or refusing to go down at puttin’s conditions with coercion, but rather an expression of the history of the NATO since its foundation in the late 1940s, Thomas Friedman wore to not hide his shock, and his direct index that Trump “plays a Russian agent on television”!
European officials knew when Trump was elected that the fundamental principles of the regime who followed the Second World War would be threatened, and they felt dismayed during the electoral campaign when he said that he would encourage the Russians to do whatever they wanted towards NATO members who did not contribute to their opinion, in his opinion, to the Alliance, in particular to the Cold War – and closed the facts of the facts which were the invoices which were the invoices which were. Standard ammunition is made, believing that wild war in Europe is now unimaginable.
Of course, Great Britain and France have independent nuclear capacities, but it is only a small part of the size of the American and Russian arsenals.
Some European leaders, including Macron, have started to admit that Europe has slowly responded to the United States without response to spending more for its army and strengthening it. These arguments are due before anyone imagines an American president can stand by Putin.
A recent report published by the European Research Center Bruegel claims that Europe will need 300,000 additional soldiers, at the cost of around $ 262 billion, to replace all of the United States for defense. The center concluded that “the figures are small enough for Europe to replace all of the United States”.
“Let’s be clear: we cannot exclude the possibility of America to refuse to cooperate with Europe in its threat problems. Many leaders have spoken of the need for Europe for its own army: the army of Europe. I really think it is time. The European armed forces should be created,” said Zellinski before quarreling with Trump.
Bernard Henry Levy, an eminent French commentator and philosopher, believes that “Europe has no choice. The American president, the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have told us that we cannot count on the United States indefinitely. We must unite or die. If we are not moving, we will bear – in the two, three or five years – a new Russian attack, but that moment, Or three or five years, but this moment Poland, or elsewhere.
The fact that this is not the first time, that the question of the future of NATO, the big titles and the mangcles of the newspaper, and how the world appears if it has disappeared or without it, with each international or regional crisis, whose division is the largest unit of the organization of military security and security in the world. Even such a question has raised the mockery of some, considers that it is distracted, or it is called each time, in which journalists do not find news, in which the pages of the newspapers prevail.
On August 29, 2018, “Michael Rohl” wrote in NATO magazine, grabbing such a question, and said: “Fifteen years ago, when the war in Iraq led to the division of NATO allies, some even spoke of the end of NATO, the veteran journalist Jim Hougland for a long time. Indeed, a blame for his colleagues: Let’s spend a slow day of news in the Washington Post, we publish an article entitled “Where is North Atlantic Alliance?!”
In the context, Trump was not the first to be the first American official, threatening or singing the “disappearance of NATO”. In a speech in Brussels in June 2011, the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned the Washington allies if they did not start paying more money to their safety, the Otat could one day become something in the past.
However, it has disappeared – over time – threats, and the language of extortion … and the alliance remained present, because NATO – as the theorists of Western security thought – was the most important security agreement, in the history of the Member States, and has always preserved the same importance, whether for the possible exit of the possible outing of Washington, or America, part.
The principle of collective defense remains – according to article five of the organization – at the heart of the founding treaty of NATO. This principle remains unique and always connecting its members together, forcing them to protect each other and establishes the spirit of solidarity within the alliance.
In addition, for many countries of the post-Soviet Union, which wants to show its independence from Russia by its relations with NATO, the end of the American security role in Europe will be a strategic disaster. Like the balance of the new power of the post-American phase in Eurasia would judge them to remain permanently in the field of Russian influence.
In addition, it – urgent, and not for good – will lose the United States – and most of its former allies – will lose its capacity to cooperate militarily, and without the procedures and standards of NATO tested and tested, even the role of the United States as a military energy force “the leadership of the rear” will become much more difficult than before.
If we look at the future, if the United States wants international support in a conflict with China or Iran – or any degree of international political cohesion on questions ranging from anti -missile defense space to Russian expansion – the construction of this consensus will be much more difficult without NATO and similar alliances.
Without forgetting that NATO will remain a “reality”.
In short, the world without NATO will be a “bad deal” for the United States, its allies and its partners in Europe and abroad, according to the estimate of Michael Rohl in the same NATO magazine.
The opinions of the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al-Jazeera.