Will Trump destroy NATO?

OPINION:

President Trump’s new National Security Strategy has generated a lot of commentary and criticism, much of it from unlikely sources.

Russia, about which the National Security Strategy barely speaks, said it was “largely consistent” with Moscow’s vision, meaning the outcome of the Russian war on Ukraine. The European Union, whose list of members is virtually indistinguishable from NATO’s, seems to believe that Mr. Trump is abandoning NATO to side with Russia. China has been observing these events with a puzzled smile.

One of the principal criticisms is that, by insisting on European responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine war, Mr. Trump wants to destroy NATO. Another is that by minimizing the threat of China, Mr. Trump is withdrawing support from our allies in the Pacific. Although both are implied, neither is stated in those terms.

The National Security Strategy begins with the statement that it is not grounded in traditional political ideology. That is certainly true. It focuses mainly on America’s commercial interests and not on the security of the regions in which we have vital national security interests.

The National Security Strategy’s harshest words are reserved for Europe. It says, “Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.” From these words comes NATO’s worry of abandonment.

The National Security Strategy states that, by virtue of their commitment in June to spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, NATO nations must meet this goal and assume primary responsibility for their region. That appears to be a huge concession to Russia and makes NATO responsible for the war in Ukraine.

The European Union is facing a defense investment crunch. In May, the EU launched its Security Action for Europe fund, in the amount of $174 billion, which gives members low-interest loans for defense investment. Sixteen nations have signed up for those loans.

One British think tank estimates the cost for Europe to spend enough on defense to be around $1 trillion. By that estimate, NATO would have to reduce its reliance on America for items such as airborne and geospatial reconnaissance, as well as long-range strike weapons. That is far beyond NATO’s capability and intention.

The National Security Strategy says the Ukraine war has increased Europe’s, meaning NATO’s, “external dependencies,” meaning, for example, its dependence on foreign oil. It goes on to say, “The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition.” One important question — how long the Russian economy can sustain the war — isn’t addressed.

Meanwhile, French President Macron has said, “There is a chance that the U.S. will betray Ukraine on territory without clarity on security guarantees.” Mr. Macron said there is considerable danger in Mr. Trump’s approach of granting concessions to Russia in negotiations on Ukraine, but he is not without sin. His nation is the third-largest purchaser of Russian energy, which is the means by which Russian President Vladimir Putin finances his war on Ukraine.

The National Security Strategy says America wants Europe to be able to defend itself without being dominated by an adversarial nation. It relies on diplomacy to “Cultivat[e] resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.” That would require an upheaval in Europe, which is extremely unlikely.

If America abandons the Russian war on Ukraine to Europe, that will mean the Russian conquest of Ukraine. Mr. Trump needs to rethink what apparently is his plan to abandon Russia’s war on Ukraine to the EU.

On China, the National Security Strategy leaves unresolved our intent to defend Taiwan, which is as it should be. For decades, China has been our principal adversary not only in the Pacific but also globally. Russia, Iran and North Korea have joined, both separately and together, in these threats. The biggest problem is that Mr. Trump’s budget does not provide for the growth of our Navy or Air Force to meet these challenges.

Our Navy obviously needs more and better ships, but, as this column has always maintained, our Air Force is the indispensable force. Every war requires the participation of major Air Force elements. No war can be successfully prosecuted with an Air Force that is, in terms of its aircraft, older and less ready to fight than it has ever been.

With our Navy and Air Force unprepared to fight, the National Security Strategy is a hollow document. Relying on diplomacy alone, as the National Security Strategy provides for, is a strategy that cannot work. “Peace through strength” requires us to rebuild our Air Force and Navy. Anything else means disaster.

Mr. Trump must realize this. He won’t destroy NATO, but his push for the NATO nations to invest more in defense may be falling on deaf ears. What could happen then is unresolved by the National Security Strategy.

.• Jed Babbin is a national security and foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Times and a contributing editor for The American Spectator.