Donald Trump’s Personal Agenda Is to Rip NATO Apart

Let’s make it clear from the outset that former President Donald Trump has no real policy toward NATO. That is, his views and utterances on NATO have nothing to do with putting forward a coherent foreign policy or any kind of rational world view. He is simply motivated to “rip” NATO based on revenge, incumbent defeat, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trying to undermine, destroy, or rip NATO apart—however one wants to characterize it—is totally motivated by a personal Trump agenda and devoid of any policy formulation.

It is utterly at odds with the U.S.’s best interest to undermines NATO, particularly at this critical point in the fight against Russia in Ukraine. But Trump went further, encouraging the alliance’s enemies to attack any NATO member country that hasn’t spent enough money on defense: “You’re delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

Once again, he displays the fact that he is unable to understand policy, let alone create it. He seems to think that NATO is a mafia protection scheme, where all the little countries have to kick up their “cut” of defense spending to the big boss, i.e. the United States.

This emotional outburst is not coming as a reaction to a strategic outlook on the United States’ position in the world, but is instead a function of the personal predilections of an emotionally unstable candidate for the presidency.

First, the question of coming to the aid of a NATO member—as posed by Trump—clearly comes in the context of the Ukraine war. He has already been successful in getting Republicans in the House of Representatives to attempt to curtail further American aid for Ukraine. The price for his contempt for sound policy will soon be paid in lives.

However, what lies behind this stance is that Trump was impeached based on his attempts to get President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to fabricate political dirt about President Biden before the 2020 presidential election—something Zelensky refused to participate in. Trump personifies retribution, as he has said about himself in his campaign, and is clearly motivated by revenge against the heroic Ukrainian president.

Second, Trump’s views on NATO are clearly intended to undermine one of Joe Biden’s great foreign policy accomplishments: uniting NATO more than ever, and strengthening it by the addition of Finland and Sweden. Taking a position that NATO is not working in the best interests of the United States is simply intended to establish one more Trump argument that Biden has no real accomplishments.

Third, the Trump anti-NATO approach is part of Trump’s mystifying relationship with Putin, which borders on subservience, illustrated most recently by his inability to voice any criticism of Putin’s murder of Alexei Navalny, who was Russia’s leading opposition leader. What really lies at the heart of Trump’s position on NATO? It’s some combination of lust for revenge against Zelensky, the need to defeat Biden at home, and the unexplained desire to serve the interests of Putin everywhere around the world.

What should be understood is that as much as NATO serves the interests of the allied countries that compose it, it is a fundamental element of the United States’ own foreign policy interests. The NATO alliance has never been stronger, and Europeans have never contributed more of their GDP to national defense. In fact, it is estimated that this year 18 of NATO’s 28 European member countries will be meeting or exceeding the target of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense.

For Trump to ignore the mutual defense provision of the NATO treaty (Article 5) because a country under attack has not yet reached the 2 percent target, would be a complete abdication of the president’s responsibility as commander in chief.

Trump’s sycophantic followers in Congress have taken the position that further U.S. support for Kyiv is not warranted. They are abandoning Ukraine to Russian depredation and destroying any credibility the United States has as a reliable ally.

It gets worse. Trump has sent a disturbing signal to Putin that come November, if he is elected, Trump is prepared to pressure Ukraine into some monumental concessions in order to end the war “in 24 hours.”

Doing that would signal to Russia—and the world—that U.S. leadership of NATO has ended. There would no longer be a meaningful deterrent to Putin’s maniacal dream of expanding the Russian “empire.”

Putin reads weakness and takes advantage of it. The West’s failure to counter Russia’s incursion into Georgia in 2008, and the allied failure to meaningfully counter Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, told Putin that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine would not be countered.

Trump is now signaling weakness that will certainly only further encourage Putin’s military conquests.

Acting as a responsible member of the alliance shows the West’s resolve to deal with territorial encroachments elsewhere on the globe, potentially including China’s ambitions against Taiwan. Showing that the most important democracies in the world are in sync—not only with respect to NATO’s member nations, but to everyone—is vital to minimizing global conflict.

Concerns about the U.S. cost toward maintaining the NATO alliance are misplaced. NATO provides a very cost efficient way for the U.S. to maintain its own defenses. The European NATO countries spend, in the aggregate, about $380 billion a year on defense, which is about the same as Russia. Good allies to have.

Moreover, it is quite possible that within the next year, Europe will exceed U.S. production of munition shells. While Europe can certainly do more to upgrade its military capacity—especially when it comes to troop strength—but being able to rely on European soldiers for countering Russian aggression is a great military asset that enhances U.S. national security.

It is true that Western European interests still need U.S. protection, and that the NATO allied countries need U.S. support, but it is in our own interest to provide it, given the consequences to global democracy and market capitalism of Russian aggression succeeding.

It is worth mentioning that the only time Article 5 has been invoked, was when the US was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Notably, when NATO countries provided support for U.S. retaliation there was no sense that they would give the U.S. an invoice for those efforts.

Trump’s position on NATO—as exhibited in his rhetoric and action toward Ukraine—is just one more reason the fate of democracy—not only in the U.S., but around the world—is at stake in the 2024 election.

We cannot allow revenge against Zelensky, anti-Biden campaign efforts, or Putin’s ability to manipulate Trump, to drive the American policy toward NATO.

Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Oorbit Gaming and Entertainment, an editor-at-large for Newsweek, the founder of CNBC and a CNBC contributor. He also established MSNBC, is the former CEO of TiVo, a member of Keep Our Republic (an organization dedicated to preserving the nation’s democracy). He is also a member of the American Bar Association Task Force on Democracy.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.