Recently, Donald Trump fired again at the primary rally in South Carolina.
This time, he is not targeting his only remaining primary opponent, Nikki Haley, nor his likely opponent, Joe Biden, but NATO.
Of course, NATO was not the subject of his speech, he was supposed to build momentum for the South Carolina primary.
But if you know a little bit about Trump, you probably know that he doesn't need a theme. When he thinks of ** or speaks**, it is the subject, and the teleprompter is a distraction for him.
The conversation was focused on Ukraine, and we knew that the U.S. Congress was now battling over whether to continue to aid Ukraine.
Most of the Democratic camp, led by Biden, are staunch supporters of Ukraine; Most of the Republican camp that supports Trump believes that more resources should be spent on solving domestic problems, and that supporting Ukraine is not necessary.
At this rally, Trump talked about Ukraine again.
He believes that the United States can support Ukraine, but in the form of loans, not gratuitous aid. Because you can't really control Ukraine's position, maybe one day they will turn around and go back into the arms of Russia, and then everything you've done for them will be in vain. And if there are loans, the United States can at least ensure that they can't just slap their butts and walk away, because they still have to pay the bills.
Then when talking about paying the bill, Trump suddenly changed his tone and began to talk about NATO, saying that he also asked NATO to pay the bill when he was in office. Of course, NATO's account here does not mean that NATO owes the United States money, but mainly refers to NATO's defense spending requirements for member states.
We know that NATO is a military alliance that has a total of 32 member states if it includes Finland, which is the latest to join, and Sweden, which is about to join.
There will be a certain degree of military coordination and drills between NATO member states, as well as assistance and sharing between the military and the country, but the core value of the alliance is actually only one point, that is, the "one loses all" clause.
This means that there is an agreement between the member states that if any one of them is attacked militarily, all other member states will be treated as having received the same attack.
Note that this convention is passive, and it only holds in the event of a military attack on a member state. But if someone picks up trouble and beats others, it definitely doesn't mean that all other members have to follow suit. In the 75 years since NATO was founded, this one-lose-lose clause has only been activated once, and that was when the United States was attacked by terrorists in 911.
In essence, the greater value of this agreement is a deterrent, after all, no one wants to provoke a large-scale war with little chance of winning. Then according to this logic, the vast majority of countries should want to join NATO, because it is equivalent to a protective umbrella. Especially in some small and medium-sized countries, they are not able and will not want to beat others, but are more afraid of being bullied.
However, NATO cannot accept everyone without a bottom line, and it must hope to absorb relatively stronger countries to enhance its deterrence. But the more important criterion is that no matter how powerful this country is, it must not be a powder keg in itself, otherwise it may pull all other member states into the water, after all, we just want to deter, not really fight.
This is also why most countries in the Middle East, as well as in the Far East, are unlikely to become members of NATO. In fact, Ukraine has always wanted to join NATO, and the relationship between the two sides is relatively ambiguous, but because of Russia, NATO still has a cautious attitude towards Ukraine in general.
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, all kinds of voices have emerged. Some say that if NATO had accepted Ukraine earlier, maybe Russia would not have dared to fight; But more people feel lucky, because if Ukraine is really a member of NATO, it may be a world war in the past two years. But Putin has always cited NATO's eastward expansion as one of the main reasons for his invasion of Ukraine.
It can be seen that the admission of NATO members involves very complex geopolitical issues, and it is by no means simple that the more the better. In addition, the consent of all existing members is required for any new member of NATO to join, and even one vote against it will not allow the new member to enter.
In the past two years, Turkey has relied on its membership to continue to block the accession of Finland and Sweden, and used it to blackmail these two countries and the United States, the leader of NATO, to demand various benefits. On the other hand, Turkey has also ignored the opposition of the United States and its European allies and is fighting fiercely with the sanctioned Russia, and NATO countries have no way to do this, and even NATO needs to rely on Turkey to send messages to Russia on some key issues.
This shows the weakness of NATO in international disputes and multilateral relations. But this is also a common problem of all international organizations, that is, when everyone wants to cooperate, they are happy and harmonious, but if anyone wants to be really unreasonable and maverick, you have nothing to do.
With regard to NATO, you understand the above level, and we can talk about the issue of paying the bill.
In fact, there is a major logical problem with NATO's all-loss clause, that is, the "anti-barrel law".
It means that in an organization that loses everything, it is not the worst one that determines the combat effectiveness of the organization, but the strongest one. In NATO, the strongest is obviously the United States, so if NATO has deterrent power, it should come from the United States, the boss.
This is a bit like the department in the unit, if the department leader is strong, the department employees can be promoted and raised, and if the leader bears, there will be a nest of bears.
But it could also lead to a phenomenon where most of the other NATO members want to free ride and not contribute anything. It's not hard to understand why, you say, apart from shouting and cheering, what else can people expect from countries like Albania and Montenegro to help the United States?
In the long run, however, this would lead to a serious asymmetry of rights and obligations among Member States. So in order to improve this problem, in 2014, NATO pushed for a new obligation clause among its members.
It requires all member states to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense every year
This reason is obvious, which means that everyone is a gang, although I don't expect you to help me when fighting, but you usually at least move your muscles and bones, so that when you are beaten, you can have some need to defend yourself!
Note that when this agreement on defense spending was reached in 2014, only three NATO members were able to meet the spending requirement. In order not to have a financial impact on member states, NATO has allowed members to gradually reach this 2 percent level within ten years.
So this year is exactly ten years, how far have everyone's homework been completed?
As of the end of 2023, excluding Sweden, which has not officially joined the alliance in the process, only 11 of the 31 NATO member states have reached the level of defense spending of 2%, including Finland, which only joined last year, and Finland can meet the requirements even if it does not join NATO.
And Europe's two strongest economies, Germany and France, have not yet met the mark. It is expected that by the end of this year (2024), only 18 of the 32 NATO members will meet the requirements at most, including Sweden, which is about to formally join NATO, but in fact, it has already reached the standard on its own.
France may reach it this year, but Germany will struggle this year, and Western European powerhouses such as Italy and Spain are unlikely to reach the target this year. Among them, Spain's defense spending is even lowest among all NATO countries. And all this, still in the case of the Russian-Ukrainian war, a war that may drag NATO, especially Europe, into the water has been fought for two whole years!
So you say how binding can NATO, or the United States, be the boss of NATO?
It is against this backdrop that Trump opened fire on NATO.
Trump said at a South Carolina rally that when he was in office, the leader of a major NATO power asked him, "If we don't meet our spending requirements, will the United States protect us when we are attacked by enemy forces?" ”
Trump said he told the other side very decisively: "No! Not only will I not protect you, but I will encourage those who attack you to fight as much as they like."
This cannon is ruthless enough, considering that Trump has also threatened to withdraw from NATO, and Trump is also strong in this year's US election season, this seems to be informing NATO members on behalf of the United States, everyone can almost take care of themselves.
Trump's cannon immediately served as a deterrent.
The Democratic camp, from Biden to members of Congress of all factions, immediately came out to attack Trump's ignorance and fearlessness. NATO, from the secretary general to the cabinet members of the member states, also came out to play a round. Considering that Trump may indeed return to the White House, it is not good for them to stand against him right now, so they can only come out and issue a declaration of solidarity while emphasizing the strategic significance of NATO's mutual assistance.
By now you should understand why Trump hates NATO, because most of NATO's members seem to care only about one thing, and that is to hide under the big umbrella of the United States so that they can save money to buy an umbrella.
In addition, in essence, what Trump hates is not NATO, but Europe. After all, ninety percent of all NATO members are European countries. He especially hated the developed countries of Western Europe, led by Germany, France, Italy, and Spain.
The Eastern European and Balkan countries in NATO are not economically strong in their own right, and they provide more strategic value to the alliance.
But your Western European countries are among the best in the world in terms of economic and technological capabilities. After so many years, I still only think about hitchhiking, this is a moral issue.
Of course, Britain is an exception, and Britain has always been in lockstep with the United States on major issues of right and wrong.
Trump's dislike of Germany, France, and Italy has been further strengthened on Ukraine.
Trump said that Ukraine seems to be your European's neighbor, even if Russia defeats Ukraine, the United States and Russia are still separated by a Pacific Ocean, but why do you Europeans keep trying to get us to help Ukraine? Plus, Ukraine isn't even a member of NATO! So now it's anyone's business, are we in charge of NATO?
Moreover, as of now, in the two years of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the United States alone has borne half of the global aid to Ukraine, with a total value of about $75 billion to $100 billion. This is equivalent to 5% of the annual military spending of the United States being distributed to Ukraine free of charge.
In addition, the bulk of the United States' aid to Ukraine is ** aid, which has led to a sharp decline in the United States' own ** stocks, but it is unable to make up for it in the short term. At the same time, the scale of the United States' own debt and fiscal deficit have reached a record high.
So do you think Trump is really ignorant and fearless about NATO?
Of course, the Americans are not stupid, everyone will calculate the money account. The mainstream thinking of the United States still believes that aiding Ukraine has the strategic significance of containing and attacking Russia, otherwise Russia's target may really be Poland and the Baltic countries, which are real NATO members. In addition, containing Russia could also deter other hostile countries, such as Iran. None of these values can be embodied by money.
However, on the one hand, it is facing its own financial problems, and on the other hand, it has to shoulder the circle of friends of NATO, is the United States really capable enough to manage so many things? In addition, the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has been almost five months old, and the United States' assistance to Israel, an iron buddy outside NATO, is even more unquestionable. Add to that the refugee crisis at the southern border of the United States, which has led to the depletion of financial resources in several states, all of which are real monetary problems.
This is why more and more Republican congressmen have begun to call on the United States to take care of its own domestic affairs before discussing the issue of aid to Ukraine.
Now you can understand why Trump hates NATO and Europe so much, right?
For many years, they have been hiding under the umbrella of the United States and devoting all their resources to the economic development and people's livelihood of their country. When the crisis comes, they only need to help the United States conduct strategic analysis and then wave the flag.
Now the armies of Britain, Germany, and France together are not as large as one South Korea.
Britain, Germany, and France together are inferior to one Japan in terms of the number of main battle tanks.
For years, we have sometimes laughed at the subservience of Europeans to Americans. But please imagine, if your leader can not only help you settle all internal and external relationships in the unit, but he will also give you money when you have no money, and he will support you to avenge you when you are bullied, and you only need to be responsible for eating well, drinking well, and living well, will you still be cold to him, right?
However, from this point of view, who is more like a leader?