Faux Pas While Telling the Truth

For John, BLUF:  Beneth the talk of Candidate Trump trash talking some of our allies is the question of if alliances like NATO are still worth the effort.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Whether it’s Donald Trump or Joe Biden, Nato’s in trouble

Here is the sub-headline:

Alliance cannot count on a Trump-led America to join it in repelling Putin or a Biden-led America to free up social funds for the nation’s military

From The Sunday Times, by Dr Iarwin Stelzer, Sunday 18 February 2024, 12.04am GMT.

Here is the lede plus four:

Donald Trump did it again. The 450 senior decision-makers gathered at the Munich Security Conference this weekend had Trump and more Trump on their minds. Which is what Trump, for whom attention is the oxygen he breathes, had in mind when he invited Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to any Nato member that has not met its informal commitment to spend 2 per cent of its GDP on its military.

Embarrassing Germany was undoubtedly an added attraction to the man who never forgets a slight, which Angela Merkel dished out more than once when she was chancellor.

Eighteen of the 31 European alliance members will hit the 2 per cent target this year. So will the alliance taken as a whole. Germany will not. Relatively rich, with a GDP per capita of more than $50,000, Germany spends a mere 1.4 per cent of its GDP on defence.

In 2022, the head of the Bundeswehr admitted: “The army that I am allowed to lead is more or less empty.” Experts reckon it would take four-to-ten years of enhanced spending to create a military that would be able to defend the nation from a Russian attack.

Poland, with a GDP per capita of only slightly more than $18,000, devotes 3.9 per cent of its GDP to its defence, and has about twice the number of active-duty personnel as Germany. History and proximity to Putin does that to a nation’s priorities.

From The Washington Examiner we have a similar view, but from The Wall Street Journal we have a voice saying "As Trump sows doubt about U.S. commitment to NATO, allies warn deterrence is fraying."  .

we have two questions to ask ourselves:

1. Does having allies enhance our national security?
2. Is the cost of any particular alliance more than the cost of providing equivient capabilities ourselves?

Given our own limitations in terms of available personnel and the value of forward basing,♠, I would say allies are a benefit.  However, allies who increase our risk of involvement in a regional war, but bring little to nothing to the fight ♥ are of dubious value.

Mt Trump's problem is he has a tendency to say the silent part out loud.  It makes him a poor diplomat.  But, perhaps, it makes him a good negotiator.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  And the risks.
♥  Perhaps increasing the risk of such a fight.