The case for burden shifting (irrespective of Trump), North Korea's unremarkable decision, the neurotic fixations of U.S. foreign policy, and more.
BURDEN SHIFTING
Trump's NATO rhetoric is feckless and obtuse—but the burden-shifting talk it prompted is long overdue
"One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, 'Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?'"
"I said: 'You didn’t pay? You're delinquent?'" former President Donald Trump boasted of his conversations with NATO allies at a campaign rally on Saturday. "'No, I would not protect you,'" he continued. "In fact, I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills."
Trump's remarks followed his longstanding pattern of mischaracterizing NATO members' defense spending commitment—a target of 2 percent of GDP that most members do not hit—as a "bill" to be paid to the U.S. But his invitation of Russian aggression went beyond past rhetoric on this topic and raised widespread alarm in European capitals and Washington alike.
The candidate's framing is typically ill-considered. But the rethinking of burden shifting his comments prompted is good—overdue, actually. Here's what this shift should look like, regardless of Trump's policy whims and political fortunes.
Reality sets in
Though NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg claimed to "expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election, the U.S. will remain a strong and committed NATO ally," other leaders across Europe recognized the continent's need to defend itself. [BBC / Adam Durbin]
Trump's comments "make more urgent Europe's nascent efforts to 'develop its strategic autonomy and invest in its defense,'" said European Council President Charles Michel.
"Europe may soon have no choice but to defend itself," wrote German MP Norbert Röttgen. "Anything else would be capitulation and giving up on ourselves." [NYT / David E. Sanger]
"The European Union, France, and Poland must become strong and ready to defend their own borders," said Polish PM Donald Tusk.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of making "Europe a security and defense power complementary to NATO, the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance." [The Guardian / Daniel Sabbagh]
Along similar lines, an editorial from FT made a rueful but sobered case for NATO Europe learning "how to plan for war without America":
"The one admirable thing about Trump's message was its clarity. It is an unambiguous signal to Europeans that they must start preparing to protect their continent's security without U.S. involvement."
"That requires a European pillar within NATO with Europeans able to provide the crucial military assets like heavy lift and intelligence that only the U.S. currently possesses."
"Europeans cannot count on" a reversal and/or election loss by Trump. "They must prepare for a new world, in which they take care of their own security." [FT / The Editorial Board]
The way forward
The FT piece makes a case that "needed to have been made even if Trump hadn't ignorantly made NATO sound like a protection racket," argued DEFP Director of Grand Strategy Rajan Menon. [X]
Menon himself has made the case for burden shifting in far greater detail in a DEFP explainer, "Reconfiguring NATO." Key points:
NATO should be reconfigured to shift the primary responsibility for defending Europe to Europeans. This far-reaching change is appropriate given Europe’s transformed security environment.
Reducing or ending the American military presence in Europe should not depend on whether European governments implement burden shifting; indeed U.S. force reductions are a prerequisite for burden shifting.
Europe has the economic and technological resources needed to assume the principal responsibility for its own defense.
Burden shifting is not merely about increased European defense spending; it also requires better military coordination among European states.
Russia's attack on Ukraine has revealed the weaknesses of the Russian military, which makes burden shifting even more appropriate. [DEFP / Menon]
Quoted
"No country on earth has constructed dozens of nuclear warheads only to negotiate them away. North Korea is not going to be the first, particularly when its conventional military capacity is weak relative to the U.S. and its Asian neighbors."
— DEFP Fellow Daniel R. DePetris, as quoted in "U.S.-North Korea arms control talks or denuclearization? Analysts are divided." [VOA / Christy Lee]
Survey says
Poll: Americans are wary of a Syria mission if it claims U.S. lives
Defense Priorities commissioned a YouGov poll to learn more about Americans' awareness and opinion of the U.S. troop presence in the Middle East, particularly Syria. The data conveyed general opposition to a U.S. troop presence in Syria grows as its cost in American lives increases.
See the full survey results here.
Upcoming livestream
2023 shifted the war in Ukraine in Russia's favor: Ukraine's failed counteroffensive, the firing of Ukraine's top general, diminishing Western support, and more. How should U.S. policy deal with Ukraine's changed fortunes?
Please join Defense Priorities on Tuesday, February 20 for a thoughtful discussion on these important issues, featuring Michael Kofman, Emma Ashford, Daniel Davis, and Benjamin Friedman.
Sober analysis
The neurotic fixations of U.S. foreign policy
Because the United States has so many tools it can use to put pressure on others, there's a powerful tendency to reach for one or more of them at the first sign of trouble. We decide what we want others to do (or not do), inform them of our demands, and then start ratcheting up the pressure or the punishment in the hope the other side will cave.
This approach rarely works, however, because we are usually asking others to make substantial concessions and because bringing pressure to bear gives adversaries even more reason to resist us. After all, if a foreign government or rebel group gives in as soon as Washington drops a few bombs or imposes some financial penalties, what’s to stop U.S. officials from issuing additional demands later?
Read the full analysis here.