- Статьи
- World
- NATO is not sad: The United States has become disillusioned with its allies in the bloc
NATO is not sad: The United States has become disillusioned with its allies in the bloc
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that after the end of the war in Iran, the White House will reconsider the country's participation in NATO. Dissatisfaction with the allies in the bloc has reached a peak — now the United States is thinking about how to "repay" the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance for their unwillingness to provide assistance. US President Donald Trump, for example, is considering the possibility of depriving NATO members who do not increase military spending to 5% of GDP of the right to use the fifth article of the alliance's charter. Raising the threshold for defense spending has been discussed for a long time, but the issue escalated before the start of a possible US ground operation in Iran. What goals Trump is pursuing, trying to put pressure on NATO, and how relations between the United States and the bloc's states will develop — in the Izvestia article.
American grievances
Recently, the US withdrawal from the North Atlantic Alliance has become an acute and relevant topic that many "hawks" are discussing. For example, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Fox News that the United States needs to rethink the importance of NATO.
"NATO is simply our presence in Europe for the sake of protecting Europe itself. But when we need their help — and it's not about them launching airstrikes — but at least about permission to use their military bases, we are refused. Then the question arises: why are we in NATO?" the politician said.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio
After the end of the war in Iran, which is entering the "home stretch," the White House "will have to rethink relations" and "re-evaluate the value" of the bloc for America, he said. Rubio also stressed that the final decision on the issue will remain with US President Donald Trump.
"We will have to seriously consider whether this alliance, which has served us for a long time, will continue to fulfill its function, or whether it has already turned into a one-sided scheme where America simply protects Europe," the official said.
The head of the Pentagon and one of the most ardent supporters of the Middle East escalation, Minister of War Pete Hegseth, also spoke about the possible termination of US cooperation with other NATO countries.
"The president points out that you don't have a real alliance if there are countries that aren't ready to support you when you need it. He's just pointing it out. And in the end, he will decide what it will look like after the end (of the war in Iran. — Ed.)," Hegseth clarified.
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
He added that America faces obstacles even when it sends requests to NATO members for the deployment of bases and the possibility of air passage. In particular, France has blocked air routes for US military logistics. Earlier it was also reported that Italy and Spain had closed bases for attacks on Iran. Meanwhile, Poland resolutely refused the "secret" request from the United States to provide a Patriot battery and PAC-3 MSE missiles, arguing that it prioritized its own security and unwillingness to interfere in the Middle East conflict.
"Our Patriot batteries and their weapons are used to protect the Polish skies and NATO's eastern flank. Nothing in this matter is changing, and we have no plans to move them anywhere! Our allies are well aware and understand how important our tasks are. Poland's security is our absolute priority," Vladislav Kosinyak—Kamysh, Minister of National Defense, outlined the government's position on social media.
In light of this, Donald Trump recently proposed an initiative according to which NATO countries that do not increase defense spending to 5% of GDP will be deprived of the right to use the fifth article of the alliance's charter, which enshrines the principle of collective defense. This was reported by The Telegraph newspaper, citing sources. We are talking about the introduction of a "pay-to-play" model, which, according to the interlocutors of the publication, may prevent the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance from making appropriate decisions, "including when the bloc enters the war."
"Any country that does not spend 5% of GDP on defense should not have the right to vote on future NATO spending. <...> You can't vote if you don't pay yourself," said a source close to Trump.
Although the idea of increasing defense spending in the bloc countries has been discussed for a long time, no restrictions have been officially reported before. For example, at last year's NATO summit in Ankara, the leaders agreed to raise the thresholds to 5% of GDP by 2035. The funds should be distributed as follows: 3.5% of the amount — for "basic defense", and the remaining 1.5% — for related areas, including cybersecurity and infrastructure protection.
In addition, in an interview with The Telegraph newspaper, Trump reiterated that he was seriously considering the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO, adding that the alliance was a "paper tiger" and the issue of the US withdrawal from the defensive alliance was "beyond review."
Help did not come from where they expected
Donald Trump's new initiative and all the recent discussions about the US withdrawal from the North Atlantic Alliance are closely linked to the escalation in the Middle East. When the United States needed the help of its allies, and they chose to stay out of the conflict, the White House came up with a way to "teach" the European Union a lesson. Experts say that at the beginning of the war, the Europeans expected a quick victory for the United States and subsequent accession to the "coalition of winners," but the result of the conflict was a severe geopolitical crisis.
Because of this, Trump has already criticized the US partners in the bloc for their unwillingness to provide Washington with peaceful minesweepers to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the total maritime oil trade passes.
"We have countries where 45,000 of our soldiers are stationed, excellent soldiers who protect them from danger. So we want to know, "Do you have minesweepers?" and they say, "Sir, we'd rather not get involved." I said: "Listen, we've been protecting you for 40 years, and you don't want to participate in something so insignificant?" the head of the White House commented on the situation.
Recall that the American leader expressed dissatisfaction with the alliance before the war in Iran. For example, at the height of the 2024 election campaign, he also threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO and talked about reducing the military contingent in Germany. The reasons for the harsh statements were again the insufficient funding provided by the countries of the bloc, as well as their desire to "ensure security at the expense of America."
It is worth noting that Trump's worries are not groundless: according to the latest report by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the share of US military spending among all 32 member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance was 60%. Accordingly, the initiative of the head of the White House is not just about budgetary pressure on partners, but about an attempt to formalize inequality within NATO. In fact, the United States is proposing to move from a consensus decision-making model to a hierarchical one, where influence on decision-making is distributed in proportion to financial participation in the block's spending.
If the proposal to apply the "pay to participate" model is officially announced in Brussels, the bloc's countries will most likely try to block it. On the one hand, NATO states are afraid of a possible US withdrawal from the alliance, because America is the leader in terms of the number of troops in the bloc — about 1.3 million troops, as well as the world's main supplier of weapons. In addition, the state spends huge amounts of money on defense, and this undoubtedly attracts allies.
On the other hand, the countries of the bloc do not intend to support armed conflicts in which the United States is involved. The example of the failed campaign in the Middle East, which Trump launched at the initiative of Israel, was illustrative. The attitude of the alliance's states towards West Jerusalem has long remained negative due to the strong support for Palestine. The large-scale energy crisis that has engulfed the EU countries has also added fuel to the fire.
Recently, the Euractiv Internet portal, with reference to a letter from European Commissioner for Energy Dan Jorgensen, reported an increase in fuel import costs.
"During the 28 days of hostilities, EU spending on natural energy imports increased by €13 billion," the document says, addressed to the relevant ministers of the EU member states.
Another limiting factor in Israel's support for EU countries is the left—wing electorate, consisting mainly of Muslim refugees who oppose the policies of the Likud party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu.
In the context of this war, Trump is criticized by those EU countries where leftists are in power, American political scientist Malek Dudakov told Izvestia. And there are both ideological and political reasons for this.
— Now it is important for states not to lose the support of migrants from the Middle East, who have a very negative attitude towards Israel and American militarism towards Iran. The split will intensify: the left will begin to actively criticize Trump, and centrists like Macron and Merz will try to sit on two chairs, the expert suggested.
If he left, he won
The split between the US and the EU is becoming more and more obvious. The current relations between Brussels and Washington absolutely accurately reflect the strategy of minimizing costs in the European direction and countering China in all other parts of the world, chosen back in the first Trump administration. The countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, in particular the EU member states, as expected for Trump, did not come to the aid of the United States: their resources are not so great as to seriously influence what is happening, international commentator Andrei Kuzmak is sure.
US President Donald Trump
— They have a lot to lose from this conflict, regardless of who wins it. The Europeans do not want to get involved in this expensive story under Trump, given the well-known contradictions that exist between them and the head of the White House. In addition, they are deterred by the fact that Washington, in case of potential success, could demonstrate it as its own triumph, and not as the restoration of allied relations. And they are also concerned about the development of the Ukrainian crisis, which Trump is trying to distance himself from," the source concluded.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
