NATO Is Not Dead, It is Just Pining For the Fjords

 I have been arguing that the heart of NATO, Article V, has been dead for since January 2025.  It took a while for the Europeans to believe it:

Anton Hofreiter, a German lawmaker, said: “NATO’s main problem is that, as long as Trump is president, there is no longer any faith that the U.S. would come to the Europeans’ aid in the event of an emergency.”  NYT

 This quote comes from an article discussing how much US military capability is being withdrawn from Europe:

• Reducing the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100
• Reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15 and cutting all eight aerial refueling tanker jets previously available to Europe
• Reallocating a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions
• Reallocating one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense

The most important piece here are the tankers--a scarce capability.  I am waiting for the big shoe to drop--how much army stuff will be moved out, because that stuff is harder to bring back quickly.  The rest could be returned to Europe in a crisis. 

First, we have to remember that the US deployment to Europe is not altruism.  The US has long benefited from stability in Europe AND using Europe as a platform for operations elsewhere (the Mideast).  

Second, deterring Russia is still an important thing--that pivoting from Europe seemed cool in 2013 but not since.  

Third, sure, the US should pivot to the Indo-Pacific, but Trump does not seem that concerned.  He has been willing to waste not just years of missiles and other ammunition but risk and lose a bunch of planes for the Iran war, which, last I checked, is not in the Indo-Pacific.  Plus Trump's statements on Taiwan raise questions about how sincere any move to the Indo-Pacific might be. 

Sure, the Europeans are investing in their militaries now--less because of Trump's hectoring and more because of the Russian threat and American unreliability.  But the Americans have always been the glue.  Can Europe count on the UK?  The UK Defence Minister just quit, so maybe not.  Can Europe count on Germany?  Not yet.  Still unproven and still lacking readiness. Can Europe count on France?  Putting elections down the road aside, it sure seems like that is the best port in this storm--many countries are now developing nuclear sharing agreements with France, something unimaginable only a few years ago.  France has finally deployed some troops to the Baltics (Canada leads in Latvia because France was too busy elsewhere to put troops there), so there is a bit of a French tripwire now.  

A European replacement for NATO is now imaginable but would be much weaker--the US simply has too many unique capabilities, has the most effective military (although politicization of it is reducing that), and has quantity as well as quality.  So, now, the best deterrent of Russian aggression in Europe is ... Ukraine, which is keeping the Russians pinned down.  

Trump is tossing away American influence and limiting future American choices while alienating allies.  And for what?  Not much.  The dealmaker continues to throw away bargaining chips.

and for the title reference, kids, check out this sketch