Download The Implications of the Trump Presidency for NATO The election of

The Implications of the Trump Presidency for NATO
The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States in November
upended international relations in virtually every area of the international relations, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization was no exception. Trump’s rhetoric during the presidential
campaign suggests a genuine possibility that the United States of America might attempt to
withdraw from NATO, an action that would dramatically reduce the bloc’s influence. His close
ties to President Vladimir Putin of Russia have also raised significant concerns from members of
NATO.1 While Trump’s well established unpredictability means that nothing is certain, his
election likely heralds a new era for the coalition of states.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump frequently questioned America’s
role in NATO and suggested that America might not honor its commitment to defend other
NATO members under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.2 Such an action would be tantamount
to a United States withdrawal from the bloc, and would be a massive handicap on its efforts to
deal with Russia and other powers in the future.3 Trump’s primary claim against NATO is that
the United States pays a disproportionate share of the organization’s costs. During a town hall on
March 29, Trump said, “The other thing that’s bad about NATO, we’re paying too much. We’re
spending a tremendous — billions and billions of dollars on NATO. …We’re paying too much!
You have countries in NATO, I think it’s 28 countries – you have countries in NATO that are
1
Birnbaum, Michael. “European leaders, NATO caution Trump on warming relations with
Russia.” The Chicago Tribune. 15 November 2016.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-european-leaders-warn-trump-on-russiarelations-20161115-story.html.
2
Smith, Alexander. “Donald Trump’s NATO Stance Threatens ‘West’ as We Know It: Experts.”
NBC News. 12 November 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trumps-nato-stance-threatens-west-we-know-it-n681926.
3
Ibid.
getting a free ride and it’s unfair, it’s very unfair.”4 Trump’s claim is not entirely without merit.
Direct funding costs for NATO are calculated based on each nation’s Gross National Income.
The United States accounts for just over 22% of NATO’s direct funding.5 That figure, while still
the largest share of any NATO member, is proportional.6 However, in terms of indirect spending,
a significantly broader category, the United States does spend proportionally more than its
NATO allies. The United States expends 3.7% of its GDP on defense, while the median figure
for NATO members is just 1.2%, well below the NATO guideline of defense expenditures of 2%
of GDP.7 Trump’s administration most likely will, at the very least, try to force changes to
NATO’s funding policies that will reduce the burden on the United States.
Trump’s close ties to Russia have raised major concerns within NATO during this period
of conflict between Putin and the west. During the campaign, members of the Democratic Party
frequently attacked Trump for receiving assistance from Russia, particularly after the American
intelligence committee concluded that Russia was behind the cyberattacks on the Democratic
National Committee that resulted in embarrassing emails being leaked. These claims were all
denied by the Trump Campaign, but after the election, Sergei Ryabkov, a Deputy Foreign
Minister of Russia, states that the Russian government was in contact with Trump during the
campaign.8 This inconsistence alarmed many NATO members, particularly those in Eastern
4
Kessler, Glenn. “Trump’s claim that the U.S. pays the ‘lion’s share’ for NATO.” The
Washington Post. 30 March 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/factchecker/wp/2016/03/30/trumps-claim-that-the-u-s-pays-the-lions-share-fornato/?utm_term=.58ebd345bfa3.
5
6
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
8
Oliphant, Roland. “Concern over future of NATO as Russia admits to ‘contacts’ with Donald
Trump’s team.” The Telegraph. 10 November 2016.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/concern-over-us-commitment-to-nato-as-russiaadmits-to-contacts/.
7
Europe who view Russia as a direct threat. The incoming Prime Minister of Lithuania, Saulius
Skvernelis, was quoted as saying, “I really hope that the rhetoric on defence and Russia was
mostly a part of the election campaign."9 President Poroshenko of the Ukraine, an ally of NATO,
congratulated Trump, but explicitly expressed his hope that Trump would stand with the Ukraine
against Russian aggression.10 Trump’s selection of Rex Tillerson to lead the American State
Department also alarmed NATO members, as Tillerson strongly opposed U.S. sanctions against
Russia and even received the Order of Friendship from President Putin in 2004.11
Of course, the various NATO leaders have formally congratulated the president-elect, but
there is an unmistakable undertone of worry in the capitals of Europe.12 No one in NATO knows
exactly what to expect from the next American president, but the next few years are likely to be
very interesting indeed.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Krauss, Clifford. “Rex Tillerson, an Aggressive Dealmaker Whose Ties with Russia may
Prompt Scrutiny.” The New York Times. 11 December 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/business/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-russia.html.
12
Borger, Julian. “Europe’s leaders cannot hide their nerves amid Trump congratulations.” The Guardian. 9
November 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/europe-leaders-cannot-hide--nerves-amiddonald-trump-congratulations.
Weapons in Kaliningrad
Sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave located
approximately 400 miles from the rest of Russia. Although the population is almost entirely
ethnic Russian, Kaliningrad, originally named Konigsberg (German for “King’s City”), had long
been a major German military stronghold and trading and industrial center, anchoring the
territory of East Prussia. After Germany’s defeat at the end of World War I, however, East
Prussia became geographically isolated from the rest of Germany to allow the newly independent
Polish republic a port on the Baltic Sea, and a purported need to regain access to the exclave
served as part of Hitler’s justification for his invasion of Poland in 1939, leading to World War II.
Subsequently, Konigsberg was severely damaged by British air raids and obliterated by the
Soviet Red Army, who occupied the city as they expelled the Nazis from Eastern Europe. At the
end of the war, Konigsberg was renamed Kaliningrad (after Soviet war hero Mikhail Kalinin), its
German population was forcibly expelled and replaced by Soviet soldiers and their families, and
Kaliningrad itself was directly incorporated into the Soviet Union as a Russian oblast, or
administrative region. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Kaliningrad remained part of Russia but
was, again, geographically separated from the rest of the country.
As NATO and the European Union expanded eastwards, Russian foreign policy has
become increasingly defensive and aggressive, conferring Kaliningrad a greater role in Russian
foreign policy and military strategy. After Poland and the Baltic States’ (Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia) accession into NATO and the EU, Kaliningrad has become surrounded by EU/NATO
states, forcing both land and maritime transportation between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia
to traverse through an adversarial region. Despite this setback, Kaliningrad’s close proximity to
the West also serves as a strategic asset for both Russia’s economy and its military. On one hand,
not only does the Baltic Sea shelf off the coast of Kaliningrad contain an estimated 9.1 million
tons of oil, but the Russian government has declared Kaliningrad a free trade zone, taking
advantage of its location near economic powerhouses further west.13 On the other hand, however,
missiles and other military technologies that are otherwise incapable of quickly striking Western
Europe from Russia can be relocated to Kaliningrad, placing major European capitals easily
within their range. Hence, any Russian military activity in the territory can easily be construed as
a threat to NATO and the European Union.
As of late 2016, US spy satellites have revealed Russia is in the process of permanently
basing a new generation of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. These missiles are capable of
carrying nuclear weapons and, from Kaliningrad, can strike Berlin.14 According to Igor
Korotchenko, chief editor of the Russian magazine National Defense, the deployment of
Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad “can be likened to an insurance policy which prevents
neighboring NATO countries from fulfilling their aggressive plans,”15 neutralizing outside
threats as NATO ramps up its military presence in Poland and the Baltic States in response to
perceived Russian expansionism in Ukraine. In particular, Russian officials describe this move as
a direct response to anti-missile installments in Romania and Poland, which are expressly
13
Sukhankin, Sergey. “Kaliningrad: Russia’s stagnant enclave.” European Council on Foreign Relations. 31 March
2016. http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_kaliningrad_russias_stagnant_enclave_6052
14
Solovyov, Dmitry, and Andrius Sytas. "Russia Moves Nuclear-capable Missiles into Kaliningrad." Ed.
Andrew Roche. Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 08 Oct. 2016. Web. 21 Dec. 2016.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-missiles-confirm-idUSKCN1280IV>.
15
Sputnik. "Moscow's Baltic 'Insurance': Advanced Weapons Keeping Russia Safe in Kaliningrad."
Sputnik International. Sputnik, 19 Dec. 2016. Web. 21 Dec. 2016.
<https://sputniknews.com/russia/201612191048725819-russia-kaliningrad-weapons-nato/>.
intended by Washington to counteract threats from states such as Iran but seen by the Kremlin as
militarily provocative moves aimed at Russia.16
Nevertheless, it is not thought that Russia intends to actually utilize these systems against
the West. Rather, it is a common tactic intended to “escalate tensions, create a discord and then
expect concessions elsewhere.”17 In light of recent, crippling economic sanctions as a response to
the Ukrainian conflict, Russia has much to gain by intimidating the West from a geographical
location within the EU and NATO themselves.
16
Hodge, Nathan. "Russia's Buildup in Kaliningrad to Test Donald Trump on NATO." The Wall Street
Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 21 Dec. 2016.
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-buildup-in-kaliningrad-to-test-donald-trump-on-nato-1481279401>.
17
Solovyov, Dmitry, and Andrius Sytas. "Russia Moves Nuclear-capable Missiles into Kaliningrad." Ed.
Andrew Roche. Reuters.