Trump's latest comments indicate any number of plans for the country's relationship with NATO and Russia under a second Trump term, according to a Northeastern political scientist.
In light of former President Donald Trump's comments about NATO and Russia last week, it's not unreasonable to believe that a second Trump presidency could upset the dynamics of US foreign policy between allies and foes.
After Trump said last week that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO nations that had not paid their share of defense fees, the former president doubled on Wednesday, telling a crowd in South Carolina: “Look, if they're not going to pay, we're not going to protect, OK?”
Each NATO country is expected to set aside about 2 percent of its gross domestic product for defense — though no such commitment is required. But NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg he acknowledged this weekwhile rebuking Trump's comments, that some members fell short of their goal.
If Trump survives the onslaught of legal challenges to him and best-in-class President Joe Biden in a 2020 presidential runoff, how might things change in Europe? With domestic aid for Ukraine balanced on a knife's edge, some experts have expressed concern about what the lack of long-term US support for the war effort means for Western cohesion.
Julie Garyassociate professor of political science who specializes in international relations and U.S. foreign policy, says Trump's latest comments point to any number of plans for the U.S. relationship with NATO and Russia in a second Trump term.
Northeastern Global News spoke to Garey about what the future may hold. Her comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.
What did you think of Trump's comments on NATO? How do you imagine they play into how he would handle the dynamic between NATO and Russia if he were re-elected?
I don't think we can really understand what the relationship will be like individually. But Trump has served as president, and we know a little about what that has meant for NATO and Russia. We could probably make some educated guesses about how things might turn out.
When Trump campaigned in 2016, a big part of his platform on NATO was that the allies were not spending enough. I think he, now as then, misunderstands the way NATO spending works, and I don't know whether that is a real misunderstanding on his part or just a political maneuver. But once elected, his rhetoric changed. While he once said that NATO basically served no purpose, he later said that it does. This did affect the NATO alliance and I guess it affected how Russia and Putin perceived the US under Trump.
Again, there are a few ways we could theorize how this turns out. One way is that it has an impact on a potential Trump administration from day one. which Russia and NATO take [his comments] seriously, and if elected and in office, this could have cascading effects. The other side is to see them as somewhat meaningless, because if you look at the last eight years or so, Trump has wavered in his perception of both NATO and Russia. Trump, as we know, tends to go off the cuff often, and when he does, it's hard to really understand where he really stands.
Is Trump's criticism valid?
Criticism of NATO allies not spending enough on their own defense is not unique to Trump. We've heard this before under previous administrations on both sides of the aisle. We also know that defense spending on them [nations] has increased, although not universally. Much more [nations] have increased their defense spending. It is hard to say whether this is the result of the invasion of Ukraine in 2014, or the promise of the Wales Summit in 2014, or the result of the Trump presidency, or the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022, or something else entirely. At this point, however, I think some European allies have said that we need to increase our ability to work together without the Americans. We cannot count on the US under Trump or under a different presidency, and that to me is not good for the United States, but it could be interpreted in two different ways if Trump is re-elected, and he is surrounded by this kind of anti- NATO people or those anti-invasion or anti-internationalists. I think they would say, “Okay, Europe is here. they spend more, we don't have to worry about them,” and then he [Trump] he continues on this path of using this rhetoric and walking away.
On the other hand, some would argue that part of why NATO exists is to keep these states together. I mean, it was to keep the US in Europe, but it was also to make Europe more cohesive, and when you start spending more money on defense by many states, and you have different priorities and the rise of domestic nationalist groups in Europe, the who are also calling for isolation or withdrawal from this joint mission — could go very badly indeed and potentially threaten US interests.
Do you see Russia's war in Ukraine continuing into the next US administration — and even beyond?
I haven't watched all of Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin, and I don't know if he asked those kinds of questions about the state of the war. But through his words and actions, Putin has made it abundantly clear that he has an end game: he sees Ukraine as part of Russia, and it seems that very little will stand in his way of pursuing that goal.
There is a significant political debate in the US about continuing aid, and it seems that in some ways, without precedent, there is a lot of disagreement from Republicans – which of course would play into a Trump presidency – about whether the US should continue to finance. Europeans are stronger overall in their commitment to continue supporting Ukraine and to fight back against this kind of Russian revisionism. Also, again, they're really committed to spending on their own defense.
When I talk to people who represent these other governments, many of them say that we didn't need the Ukrainian invasion to tell us that Russia is becoming a growing threat. So I think they're more firmly committed and in many ways than the US, and there's not as much dissent within those countries. How long this sense of unity continues: it is not clear. It depends on their predictions of how the war will play out and how their needs continue to be threatened, and likely how the US continues to behave in its involvement with NATO. However, for the foreseeable future, I see the European commitment remaining strong.
Since you brought up the Tucker Carlson interview, I'm wondering if you think Trump – again, if he won this year – would ever travel to Russia and meet with Putin in the middle of this war? How do you think such a trip would be perceived?
I don't know if there is any possibility that Trump was traveling to Moscow or elsewhere to meet with Putin. I think NATO and the US have said in the past that pursuing diplomacy is a good thing, right? Opens chat lines. Russia and NATO have cooperated through the NATO-Russia Council for many years because they saw it as an opportunity to address common interests. But I think it's very unlikely, even in a Trump presidency, that we'll have a meeting that will lead to some kind of concession from Russia. Furthermore, I think NATO allies and many in the US would see that [a meeting] as a failure — more political than diplomatic.
My impression is that, since 2014, Putin does not consider anyone a friend. For him, it's about achieving these political or military or economic outcomes, and I think he's so distrustful of anyone trying to develop those relationships with him that, if there ever was such a meeting, there would be no substance to it. . It will be seen as a kind of political stunt.
And then if Trump came out and spoke very positively and said that he supports what Putin is doing and was very nice, obviously that will negatively affect the NATO alliance. If he comes out and says, I see no end to it; This is a protracted conflict, etc., and he takes a more neutral position to just describe reality — I don't know what effect that would have had.
