What Might Transatlantic Security Look Like If The US Leaves NATO?
If NATO as a whole remains more or less intact upon the US’ hypothetical exit, and the US then reaches bilateral security deals with Poland, the Baltic States, and Turkiye, then not much would change from Russia’s perspective.
Trump’s latest talk about the US leaving NATO is being taken seriously by many Europeans owing to his rage over their refusal to help him reopen the Strait of Hormuz, not to mention them denying the US access to its own bases on their territory and even their airspace for use in the Third Gulf War. It’s possible that this is just a bluff, however, to usher in the radical reforms that he envisages and which were described here in connection with a prior report about his supposed “pay to play” plans.
Nevertheless, it’s also possible that he’s indeed serious and that the US will ultimately end up leaving NATO, in which case it’s useful to analyze the future of transatlantic security. For starters, the headquarters of both EUCOM and AFRICOM are in Germany, and it would be very difficult and inconvenient to relocate them. Therefore, the US might reach a bilateral security deal with Germany in this scenario, which could set the basis for other such deals with other NATO members.
Such arrangements would likely include terms that are advantageous to the US such as its allies committing 5% of their GDP to defense like has already been demanded of them as well as giving a preference to American companies for military-technical procurement. The US might also demand that its troops be granted immunity for any crimes that they might commit while based in their allied nation. Trump could seek to enshrine trade privileges for the US into any security deal too knowing him.
The only countries that would likely agree to such terms are those whose leaders either sincerely fear Russia or manipulate the public on this pretext, thus Poland and the Baltic States for sure, but Finland and Romania can’t be ruled out either. They and the other NATO members would still enjoy Article 5 assurances amongst themselves, but it’s also possible that larger members like France, Germany, Italy, and/or the UK might follow the US’ lead in making demands of the smaller ones for ensuring this.
In that event, the European security system could fundamentally change, but concerns about Russia exploiting the optics of infighting (even if only for soft power purposes and not by initiating hostilities against post-US NATO) could deter the aforementioned larger members from doing this. If NATO as a whole remains more or less intact upon the US’ hypothetical exit, and the US then reaches bilateral security deals with Poland and the Baltic States, then not much would change from Russia’s perspective.
The same goes for if the US reaches such a deal with Turkiye, which enjoys pragmatic ties with Russia unlike Poland and the Baltic States but is poised to take the lead in expanding Western influence along its southern periphery through the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity”. If the US remains committed to Turkiye’s defense, any potential clash with Russia could risk World War III. If no such deal is reached, however, then Russia might be more proactive in pushing back against Turkish influence there.
All in all, transatlantic security isn’t expected to change much if the US leaves NATO so long as it retains Article 5-like obligations to several of the bloc’s key members, namely Poland, the Baltic States, and Turkiye. If it doesn’t, then Russia might consider preventive military action against post-US NATO to eliminate security threats emanating from it, but it could be deterred by nuclear-armed France and/or the UK reaffirming their Article 5 obligations to the bloc’s members. Nothing would really change then.
I could be very wrong but I don't see the US withdrawing from NATO - I think it's just a bluff. I could see it happening had Trump kept the spirit of MAGA upon his re-election, and retreated to focusing on "Fortress America", but he has done quite the opposite. The US is now on a mad global power grab quest, and I just don't see them wanting to lose their leverage of being in what remains a very important security/ military Transatlantic alliance.
Thank you for this insight.
Here too, I believe that the principle of marginalizing Europe, as described by George Friedman, takes precedence.
With NATO, it was and is only about two things:
- Controlling and blackmailing Europe
- Keeping Russia under pressure and encircling it with strategic expansions
The US will pursue the path of maximum economic gain for the US Deep State.
In my overall view, this path consists of ultimately binding Europe so closely to itself through economic and systemic dependencies that the trade balances of the US and Europe will eventually merge. The US is completely bankrupt with the weakening of the petrodollar. What else can they do if they don't want to trigger a global nuclear war? Lose without a fight against the passage of time? Never.
In planning the Great Reset, it was of course understood that this EUSA could never work due to cultural differences. That's why the EU has been culturally undermined by the CIA for 30 years, just as they were able to do in Russia under Yeltsin with virtually no resistance. Vance's pronouncements about the declining Euro-culture are pure smoke and mirrors. He couldn't care less if his homeland, which is the USA, wins in the process.
Why did Soros and people like Gates invest in NGOs? Why did the EU traitors jump on this bandwagon for decades? Because it's such a good, unifying cause, and they would all be part of the grand narrative. They dreamed of a world government. A global monopoly, as it's written in the books, but in reality, it would only amount to super-colonialism.
Therefore, I consider the question of NATO's future to be causally linked to the question of how to completely subjugate Europe's economy in order to integrate it into the American trade balance and best advance the encirclement plan.
If NATO proves unsuitable due to a lack of unity, the Americans will leave it and (see the example of the UN Peace Council) simply reorganize it.
While Europe is still discussing, analyzing, and arguing, Trump is taking decisive action. Bush said, "Whoever is not with us is against us." Trump/Vance will say, "Peace will come to those who talk to us." Sounds better than Bush, doesn't it? The message is the same: Our conditions or bombs. It's blackmail.
I think the Kremlin has factored in the fact that the US has always resorted to blackmail and threats (NATO or a successor to Trumpeace) in its own scenarios. They already know how the super-narcissist Trump operates.
Therefore, only one top priority is: conserving resources and developing technology.
Russia is at war and, even under Trump, is keeping it relatively contained. This is evident in the situation in Ukraine.
Russia hasn't even declared a general mobilization yet.
The danger for Russia lies in the future.
With or without NATO. With or without Trump/Vance or Democratic Russophobia: They will be prepared for it differently than Europe.