Great column, General Hertling! Of course, the reason that Trump wants to set an arbitrary level of 5% GDP for defense spending is that it’s simple, and Trump is incapable of understanding the complex concepts that you outlined.
NATO has endured serious disagreements before? Like democracy in the United States of America teetering on the brink from an assault from the inside by an authoritarian major party? Neither NATO nor the United States has ever faced a threat to freedom and democracy this grave in either of their histories. This requires action and a rethink way beyond anything else in history. If enough Americans do not wake up in time, democracy and freedom in the United States will be murdered by today’s authoritarian Republican Party, and the remaining democracies in the world must band together to keep freedom alive. They must certainly no longer be dependent on what has become of the United States of America.
I think he's aware of it, and knows it's the primary reason why other NATO countries are pivoting away from the use of US-made hardware and software. They are (quite rightly) regarding us as a potential military threat.
Great discussion of an issue that doesn't usually include the details addressed here.
As Europeans respond to the need for more military spending, especially as the threat from Russia continues and support from the US declines, they are increasingly looking at developing weapons systems of their own. I suspect that Trump will complain about this because it is already meaning less spent for US weapons. So as usual he may find that what he demanded isn't what he wanted either. In addition while Trump goes on and on with an "I want it and I want it now" posture, he ignores what these allies have done for the US in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Nothing counts for him unless it's what he wants today - far removed from strategic or even policy oriented thinking.
In a related topic, IRAN and Trump's complaints about our allies, NATO has always been a defensive treaty. Turkey which shares a border with Iran, fears a flood of immigrants as a result of the war and shares US concerns about a war with Iran, a nuclear Iran, has remained neutral and denied its air space for the US attacks. Yet despite these issues, was not consulted beforehand and, if anything has a greater stake than the US in this region.
Had Trump ever read any history books, when two NATO allies (UK and France) attacked Egypt to retake the Suez Canal in which they had major geopolitical and economic interests, their ally, the US refused to support them and actually opposed their moves. So what they're doing today is consistent with NATO principles as was the US in the Suez crisis. NATO supported the US when attacked on 9/11 but we all legitimately wonder whether the US under Trump will do the same in Europe.
" But those who believe the current strains with Washington represent an unprecedented threat to NATO should remember that the Alliance has endured serious internal disagreements before. As President Macron suggests an approach independent of the U.S., he might want to remember that in 1966 President Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO’s integrated military command structure, forced NATO headquarters and foreign military forces to leave French territory, and pursued a more independent national defense policy. "
With all due respect General, I believe you underestimate the threat trump poses to NATO. He's openly aligned with and subservient to NATO's main enemy, Putin. He's actively working to weaken the alliance, he hates NATO, and periodically threatens its members. That's a hell of a lot worse than De Gaulle withdrawing from NATO's integrated military command.
Since we cannot all attend General Hertling's classes, once again he schools us in the varying dynamics of each situation. Thank you General Hertling and The Bulwark for todays lesson!
Thank you for these columns, General Hertling. This level and sophistication of analysis is available nowhere else, at least not where the general public has access to it. The clarity and depth of your columns is much appreciated.
One of the most important components of NATO isn’t spending or military capabilities. It’s trust between its members. Thanks to Trump the trust between the U.S. and the other member nations has been eroded. I don’t think I need to remind readers of the many outright stupid actions by the U.S. such as floating the idea of taking Greenland by any means necessary.
Even our “special relationship” with the UK has eroded. They are holding back information that would normally be shared freely and without reservation. And countries like Canada are publicly discussing what NATO would be like without the U.S. at the helm.
Many of us hope this is temporary but knowing how history plays out I’m guessing that we’ll slowly be moved to membership in name only. My hope is that Europe is up to the task…this piece on Poland gives me hope that regardless of the political insanity here that Europe is truly up to the moment.
The U.S. "goal"of 5% GDP commitment by our treaty-bound NATO allies is transparently unimportant. Our President uses that figure only to support his determination to break our involvement with the NATO treaty. His entire view is transactional based on false logic and a complete misunderstanding of Realpolitik.
Let's assume that all NATO governments immediately meet or exceed the 5% of GDP "goal" of defense expenditures.
NATO nations will legitimately ask: What would the U.S. government do if Russia attacks a NATO nation? Would the U.S. government continue providing real-time strategic and tactical intelligence to NATO forces? Would the U.S. government immediately reinforce NATO with troops and equipment deployed to NATO as we did during REFORGER exercises?
Or would the U.S. government restrain our defense of our NATO allies due to our President's affection for and affiliation with Putin? A full-throated U.S. response to Russia might, after all, jeopardize Trump and Trump family economic interests (graft) with Putin and his siloviki.
In 1981, NATO - a much smaller NATO - was confronted by the Polish crisis, Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, and public protests against U.S. medium range ballistic missile deployments meant to counter Soviet SS-20 deployments in eastern Europe.
Despite this environment, France deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups to participate directly in OCEAN VENTURE '81, the annual NATO Naval exercise.
This was the first time since 1966 that France - under Mitterand, the Socialist French Premier - directly integrated its forces in a NATO military operation.
OCEAN VENTURE '81 was built around the Maritime Strategy described by John Lehman and endorsed by President Reagan. The Soviet Navy made clear the Soviet government's displeasure of the French action.
No matter what one thinks, on reflection, of Reagan, one would appreciate the leadership and commitment of a U.S. President to our national interests and treaties.
I agree that the spending debate has become a canard. In fact, it always was one. However, I don’t agree that increased defense spending is unquestionably necessary. In fact, I think we should be looking for ways to cut defense spending, especially in the U.S., but maintain our national security.
The unspoken problem underlying this is Criminal Trump’s hostility to Europe. His demand for 5% spending from European countries is nothing but an attack on Europe. As you note, the U.S. doesn’t spend 5% of GDP.
His demand is dishonest. Under the guise of suggesting they aren’t doing their share and that they should spend more on defense, he’s really just trying to weaken European governments. That’s because Europe is now seriously democratic and Criminal Trump hates democracy. It’s practically his defining characteristic.
This is the real security threat. Beneath the NATO alliance is the defense of Western values. We have a security agreement with Europe because we have fundamental ideological agreement on values: democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and prosperity based on free markets. Not to mention respect for international borders.
Criminal Trump is opposed to those basic American values. He constantly makes trouble within the alliance because he wants to be a dictator and Western values don’t allow that.
And the other problem with increased military spending is that it isn’t the most important factor in our security. Soft power is far more important. But beyond that our dependence on oil as a basic component of energy structure compels us to overspend on military force.
It’s only because the possession and sale of oil causes wars in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that the U.S. has to field enormous military power there. The war in Ukraine would not be taking place now if Russia had not been able to fund it from the sale of oil and natural gas.
We don’t have to be beholden to oil for energy. Right now, renewable energy is getting to be cheaper than oil for generating energy. Solar power is now the cheapest way of producing electricity.
Rather than spend hundreds of billions each year on our military we would be better off to spend much more moving from fossil fuel to renewable energy. That would lessen the need for military spending.
And beyond that, we should stop thinking about how the U.S. can dominate the world with our military. Instead, we need to think about how the countries in each region of the world can take on the burden of keeping peace in their regions. The U.S. should be a part of those security alliances to ensure that our interests are met. But one of the reasons our military spending here is so high is because we don’t maximize the value of other countries in regional alliances.
The funding question is definitely a canard. And in response we should think more broadly about how to maximize national security. Part of that is restructuring our security alliances so that we spend less around the world but maintain the peace. Part is by shifting our dependence off oil and other fossil fuels, so that wars are harder to come by.
This is an important topic, and I appreciate the hard thought that went into this analysis. I totally agree with the fundamental point that we should look at defense needs and find funding appropriate to those needs. Some arbitrary percentage is not smart thinking. And in defense, as we’ve seen throughout history, stupid thinking leads to catastrophes.
Great column, General Hertling! Of course, the reason that Trump wants to set an arbitrary level of 5% GDP for defense spending is that it’s simple, and Trump is incapable of understanding the complex concepts that you outlined.
NATO has endured serious disagreements before? Like democracy in the United States of America teetering on the brink from an assault from the inside by an authoritarian major party? Neither NATO nor the United States has ever faced a threat to freedom and democracy this grave in either of their histories. This requires action and a rethink way beyond anything else in history. If enough Americans do not wake up in time, democracy and freedom in the United States will be murdered by today’s authoritarian Republican Party, and the remaining democracies in the world must band together to keep freedom alive. They must certainly no longer be dependent on what has become of the United States of America.
Thank you!!!! Well said! I think the General severely underestimates the threat that trump and his fascist magat government poses to NATO.
I think he's aware of it, and knows it's the primary reason why other NATO countries are pivoting away from the use of US-made hardware and software. They are (quite rightly) regarding us as a potential military threat.
Great discussion of an issue that doesn't usually include the details addressed here.
As Europeans respond to the need for more military spending, especially as the threat from Russia continues and support from the US declines, they are increasingly looking at developing weapons systems of their own. I suspect that Trump will complain about this because it is already meaning less spent for US weapons. So as usual he may find that what he demanded isn't what he wanted either. In addition while Trump goes on and on with an "I want it and I want it now" posture, he ignores what these allies have done for the US in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Nothing counts for him unless it's what he wants today - far removed from strategic or even policy oriented thinking.
In a related topic, IRAN and Trump's complaints about our allies, NATO has always been a defensive treaty. Turkey which shares a border with Iran, fears a flood of immigrants as a result of the war and shares US concerns about a war with Iran, a nuclear Iran, has remained neutral and denied its air space for the US attacks. Yet despite these issues, was not consulted beforehand and, if anything has a greater stake than the US in this region.
Had Trump ever read any history books, when two NATO allies (UK and France) attacked Egypt to retake the Suez Canal in which they had major geopolitical and economic interests, their ally, the US refused to support them and actually opposed their moves. So what they're doing today is consistent with NATO principles as was the US in the Suez crisis. NATO supported the US when attacked on 9/11 but we all legitimately wonder whether the US under Trump will do the same in Europe.
" But those who believe the current strains with Washington represent an unprecedented threat to NATO should remember that the Alliance has endured serious internal disagreements before. As President Macron suggests an approach independent of the U.S., he might want to remember that in 1966 President Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO’s integrated military command structure, forced NATO headquarters and foreign military forces to leave French territory, and pursued a more independent national defense policy. "
With all due respect General, I believe you underestimate the threat trump poses to NATO. He's openly aligned with and subservient to NATO's main enemy, Putin. He's actively working to weaken the alliance, he hates NATO, and periodically threatens its members. That's a hell of a lot worse than De Gaulle withdrawing from NATO's integrated military command.
Since we cannot all attend General Hertling's classes, once again he schools us in the varying dynamics of each situation. Thank you General Hertling and The Bulwark for todays lesson!
Thank you for these columns, General Hertling. This level and sophistication of analysis is available nowhere else, at least not where the general public has access to it. The clarity and depth of your columns is much appreciated.
One of the most important components of NATO isn’t spending or military capabilities. It’s trust between its members. Thanks to Trump the trust between the U.S. and the other member nations has been eroded. I don’t think I need to remind readers of the many outright stupid actions by the U.S. such as floating the idea of taking Greenland by any means necessary.
Even our “special relationship” with the UK has eroded. They are holding back information that would normally be shared freely and without reservation. And countries like Canada are publicly discussing what NATO would be like without the U.S. at the helm.
Many of us hope this is temporary but knowing how history plays out I’m guessing that we’ll slowly be moved to membership in name only. My hope is that Europe is up to the task…this piece on Poland gives me hope that regardless of the political insanity here that Europe is truly up to the moment.
The U.S. "goal"of 5% GDP commitment by our treaty-bound NATO allies is transparently unimportant. Our President uses that figure only to support his determination to break our involvement with the NATO treaty. His entire view is transactional based on false logic and a complete misunderstanding of Realpolitik.
Let's assume that all NATO governments immediately meet or exceed the 5% of GDP "goal" of defense expenditures.
NATO nations will legitimately ask: What would the U.S. government do if Russia attacks a NATO nation? Would the U.S. government continue providing real-time strategic and tactical intelligence to NATO forces? Would the U.S. government immediately reinforce NATO with troops and equipment deployed to NATO as we did during REFORGER exercises?
Or would the U.S. government restrain our defense of our NATO allies due to our President's affection for and affiliation with Putin? A full-throated U.S. response to Russia might, after all, jeopardize Trump and Trump family economic interests (graft) with Putin and his siloviki.
In 1981, NATO - a much smaller NATO - was confronted by the Polish crisis, Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, and public protests against U.S. medium range ballistic missile deployments meant to counter Soviet SS-20 deployments in eastern Europe.
Despite this environment, France deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups to participate directly in OCEAN VENTURE '81, the annual NATO Naval exercise.
This was the first time since 1966 that France - under Mitterand, the Socialist French Premier - directly integrated its forces in a NATO military operation.
OCEAN VENTURE '81 was built around the Maritime Strategy described by John Lehman and endorsed by President Reagan. The Soviet Navy made clear the Soviet government's displeasure of the French action.
No matter what one thinks, on reflection, of Reagan, one would appreciate the leadership and commitment of a U.S. President to our national interests and treaties.
Excellent column. I hope it receives widespread exposure beyond the Bulwark
I agree that the spending debate has become a canard. In fact, it always was one. However, I don’t agree that increased defense spending is unquestionably necessary. In fact, I think we should be looking for ways to cut defense spending, especially in the U.S., but maintain our national security.
The unspoken problem underlying this is Criminal Trump’s hostility to Europe. His demand for 5% spending from European countries is nothing but an attack on Europe. As you note, the U.S. doesn’t spend 5% of GDP.
His demand is dishonest. Under the guise of suggesting they aren’t doing their share and that they should spend more on defense, he’s really just trying to weaken European governments. That’s because Europe is now seriously democratic and Criminal Trump hates democracy. It’s practically his defining characteristic.
This is the real security threat. Beneath the NATO alliance is the defense of Western values. We have a security agreement with Europe because we have fundamental ideological agreement on values: democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and prosperity based on free markets. Not to mention respect for international borders.
Criminal Trump is opposed to those basic American values. He constantly makes trouble within the alliance because he wants to be a dictator and Western values don’t allow that.
And the other problem with increased military spending is that it isn’t the most important factor in our security. Soft power is far more important. But beyond that our dependence on oil as a basic component of energy structure compels us to overspend on military force.
It’s only because the possession and sale of oil causes wars in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that the U.S. has to field enormous military power there. The war in Ukraine would not be taking place now if Russia had not been able to fund it from the sale of oil and natural gas.
We don’t have to be beholden to oil for energy. Right now, renewable energy is getting to be cheaper than oil for generating energy. Solar power is now the cheapest way of producing electricity.
Rather than spend hundreds of billions each year on our military we would be better off to spend much more moving from fossil fuel to renewable energy. That would lessen the need for military spending.
And beyond that, we should stop thinking about how the U.S. can dominate the world with our military. Instead, we need to think about how the countries in each region of the world can take on the burden of keeping peace in their regions. The U.S. should be a part of those security alliances to ensure that our interests are met. But one of the reasons our military spending here is so high is because we don’t maximize the value of other countries in regional alliances.
The funding question is definitely a canard. And in response we should think more broadly about how to maximize national security. Part of that is restructuring our security alliances so that we spend less around the world but maintain the peace. Part is by shifting our dependence off oil and other fossil fuels, so that wars are harder to come by.
This is an important topic, and I appreciate the hard thought that went into this analysis. I totally agree with the fundamental point that we should look at defense needs and find funding appropriate to those needs. Some arbitrary percentage is not smart thinking. And in defense, as we’ve seen throughout history, stupid thinking leads to catastrophes.
I learned a lot!