Can NATO repair its relationship with Trump? | This is America

This is America, and this is where NATO was first formed 77 years ago. It's an alliance that's always been thought to be as strong as the building in which it was signed. That was until Donald Trump came along, a long-term sceptic. He has threatened to leave, so can that relationship be saved? We'll be talking more about that in a minute. First, though, let's go to Alex Marquardt in our Washington, D.C. studio. Thank you, Richard. The NATO summit is winding down after a bumpy two days of high-stakes diplomatic meetings in Ankara. Since Trump took office again last year, tension has only grown over Ukraine, over Iran, Arctic security, and President Trump's highly transactional view of global alliances. One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said, you didn't pay? You're delinquent? He said, yes, let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills. I think it's common sense, right? If they don't pay, I'm not going to defend them. No, I'm not going to defend them. I got into a lot of heat when I said that. You said, oh, he's violating NATO. We're defending the strait for everybody else. And then in the case of NATO, they don't want to help us defend the strait and they're the ones that need it. We're very disappointed with NATO because NATO has done absolutely nothing. I said 25 years ago that NATO is a paper tiger, but more importantly, that we'll come to their rescue but they will never come to ours. We were disappointed with the UK. We were disappointed with Germany and France. We're disappointed with most of them. I just want loyalty. You know, we're so loyal to them. We're always fighting for them. We have thousands of troops all over Europe. In Germany, we have 50,000 troops and then you want a little, give us a little nudge, give us a little kiss. We don't want much. Since taking office, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has set to work trying to keep Trump engaged with the alliance with an unabashed charm offensive. He recently headed into the Oval Office armed with large charts crediting the president for a massive spike in spending by NATO allies. But despite the relentless praise from Rutte, the existential question remains, can America's allies successfully repair and maintain ties with this Trump administration while still preserving their own independence on the world stage? And failing that, what might a potential reset mean for global defense? Richard Gaisford has this report. Five through six on Bravo. U.S. Marines in action in Eastern Europe last week on a joint training exercise with Romanian counterparts. It's all part of ongoing NATO cooperation that for more than seven decades has seen members ready to fight together against a common enemy. The treaty was agreed right here in Washington, D.C. back in 1949 with 12 countries coming together to sign it inside the historic building behind me. Now, times might have changed, but a bit like the facade of the auditorium here, the ethos of NATO has stayed pretty much the same, although it's unlikely those who created NATO would have thought one of the biggest threats to its existence could have come from inside America itself. Since he first took office, Donald Trump has shown disdain for the longstanding alliance, believing smaller countries have become reliant on the United States and were unwilling to fund their own defense. NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. But 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. The president's ever shifting stance on supporting Ukraine's certainly tested nerves within NATO, with its secretary general doing what he can in the president's second term to keep him on side. I don't have many disagreements with the president of the United States. Unity's been stretched with Trump's desire to take control of Greenland. And NATO's got to understand that I'm all for NATO. I saved NATO. If it weren't for me, you wouldn't have a NATO right now. But we're not going to allow Russia or China to occupy Greenland. And that's what's going to happen if we don't. NATO launched Arctic Sentry to reassure leaders in the US and Europe that it could maintain high levels of vigilance in the area. Although weeks later, there was further friction when NATO members declined to offer help in the US conflict with Iran, refusing to send warships into the Strait of Hormuz. Because we don't need them, but they should have been there. That's reinforced Trump's view of a one-sided alliance, prompting a now familiar refrain. But we weren't treated well because we did something in Iran. We don't need anybody's help. I didn't even want their help. But before I asked, they said they wouldn't be there. But you know, why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars and they're not there for us? We've always been there for them. This is coalition warship Foxtrot 310, operating in support of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Allies hope promises to increase their defence spending will help smooth the way as NATO members meet. But leaders know, based on recent experience, under the surface, tensions could easily emerge. Richard Gaisford, Al Jazeera, Washington. We're joined now by Jim Townsend, the former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for European and NATO policy, as well as Ambassador Michael Carpenter, who was most recently the Senior Director for Europe on the National Security Council under President Joe Biden. Gentlemen, thank you both so much for joining us today. It was a remarkable NATO summit in Ankara. And I want to start with the news. Repeated blasting of NATO by Trump, despite the fact that this is meant to be an event that shows the unity, the solidarity of the alliance, repeatedly saying, I'm not happy with NATO. He went after Spain repeatedly, France, Great Britain and Germany. Jim, this acrimony from Trump towards the NATO alliance not even softening when he's sitting in front of the secretary general in the warm embrace of all these allies. Well, absolutely. And the secretary general had to keep a stony face as he was listening to what the president was saying. And so this is something that is has gotten outrageous. He has just a stuck record. He just seems to repeat the same talking points over and over and over again. Now he's singling out nations, you know, in front of them. And this this this is in this undercuts the alliance. It hurts unity. And it is embarrassing to the United States. And I think allies are tired of it. Michael, the most recent thing to anger Trump when it comes to NATO is the fact that they didn't get involved in the war with Iran, which, of course, the U.S. and Israel started. How are these NATO allies dealing with this accusation that they should have had a bigger role? Well, I think they're pushing back as they should. I mean, NATO is a defensive alliance. It doesn't go on offensive wars. And a lot of NATO allies saw the war as an illegal war, one that not comport with international law. So they chose to sit on the sidelines. And some of them also prevented their airspace and their bases from being used. That's their sovereign right. And so I understand that that would cause some friction from the United States and President Trump would be upset. But he's taking it out on the alliance as a whole, and that is diminishing the credibility of Article 5. And that's very serious stuff because it gives an entree point for adversaries like Russia, but also for other countries to potentially test that unity of the alliance. So rather than come together and try and bring the allies together, as U.S. leaders typically do in a situation like this, President Trump is exacerbating those tensions and fissures within the alliance. Yeah. Essentially, the NATO countries have said this is we have nothing to do with this in Article 5. We should note an attack on one is an attack on all. We're going to get into that in just a moment. Jim, Rutte essentially responded. His spin was he called these forceful debates that showed that the U.S., quote, has completely committed to NATO. Was that your read? No. You know, it's hard to read Trump. Is he really committed to NATO? He kind of waxes back and forth depending on the situation. I think what Mark Rutte tries to do is what we call putting lipstick on a pig and trying to make the best case of something where there is no guarantee about this about this commitment. And that is something that not only do the allies see that, but so does Putin and other adversaries who might be out to do ill will towards the towards the alliance. So this is something that is the secretary general's job is to keep everyone together, including the United States, even when he has to go out on a limb and say things that may or may not be true. Yeah. Few things give the Russian president Vladimir Putin more pleasure than seeing these fractures among this transatlantic alliance. I want to touch on Greenland. And this was essentially one of the original red flags when it comes to NATO, when Trump first took office, sorry, took office again last year. It had kind of gone quiet. And now the issue is really back in force. Here's what Trump had to say about Greenland during this NATO summit. Do you think the U.S. will have to end Greenland ultimately? End what? Greenland. Well, that's what hurt my relationship with NATO. Because Greenland doesn't help Denmark. Denmark doesn't spend money to really help Greenland. But it's an important part of the United States. And it's surrounded by China ships and Russian ships. And that's not going to happen to ships. It's not going to happen. It was Greenland, and it continues to be, that should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark. Michael, it had looked like things would take the quieter path. They had started talking about negotiations, some kind of agreement between Denmark, Greenland and the United States. Based on what we've heard in Ankara, where do you think things go from here? Well, it's hard to say. But President Trump keeps coming back to the issue of Greenland belonging to the United States. And I think he sees this as one of his chief legacy aims, is to bring Greenland into the United States. But it's just such an outrageous statement that we just heard from the president, because he's talking about the sovereignty of another country. He's talking about Denmark, a founding member of the NATO alliance, and a committed U.S. partner for decades and decades since the end of the Second World War. And he's threatening this country with potentially incorporating part of their territory, the sovereign territory of Greenland, into the United States. I don't know where this goes. Some analysts thought that after the G7 in Evian that things would calm down. He sort of put on a happy face for that meeting. But now he's coming back to this. I would expect that after the midterm election, because, look, this is not popular with most Republicans on the Hill. I would expect that after the midterms, the president will come back to this issue of Greenland and will potentially apply much more coercive measures to try to see what he can accomplish. I think right now he understands that this is unpopular both at home and certainly in Europe, where this has earned the ire of all European leaders. I mean, the U.S., the trusted linchpin of transatlantic defense and deterrence, now threatening the sovereignty of another NATO ally is just beyond the pale. But I don't expect this to go away anytime soon. And the argument is, his argument rather, is they don't need it. We do. We have access to all the installations on the island that we could possibly want. The Greenlandic authorities and the Danes have both said if we want to build additional military installations or bases on the island, they are open to that. They are open to the U.S. using whatever capabilities we have. And by the way, it's not true that there are legions of Russian and Chinese ships around the island. Potentially in the future it could be. And it is a strategic spot on the planet Earth located near the Arctic and the North Atlantic Ocean. But right now we don't see that threat in the same terms that the president has described it. Jim, I see you shaking your head. The Danish prime minister said that they would defend every inch of Greenland. This idea that Denmark would have to confront the U.S. military is just extraordinary. What's your take? Well, it's extraordinary. It's something that has just lit a fire under a lot of the allies, too. When you list all the things that Trump has said that has upset the alliance most, Greenland tops the list because of the very fact that you pointed out. The idea that a fellow ally would invade a neighbor and an ally to take land that doesn't belong to them. I mean, that's the way they see it. That's not the way Trump sees it, perhaps, or his administration. But that's how Europe sees it. That's how Denmark sees it. And the Greenlanders themselves have said they're not interested in joining the United States. So this would be just this it would be an outrageous, coercive military assault if, in fact, that is what this comes to. And I'm not so sure if the U.S. military would be in favor of this either. And that's a whole nother story. From the get go, one of Trump's main complaints is is the other countries are not paying their dues. We do know, of course, that the U.S. is is paying is contributing the most to the NATO budget. I want to take a look at the numbers in the NATO budget. In twenty twenty five, the U.S. contributed nine hundred eighty billion to NATO. That was 72 percent of the total funding. The rest of the NATO countries combined just 28 percent, around three hundred and eighty four billion. Michael, there has been a change in the requirements of how much each country needs to contribute to their national defense from two percent up to five percent. Most countries are not there yet. I think it's just three out of the 32 allies are at that five percent level. But how important is this increase in spending? Well, it is important because there is a various serious threat to European security from Russia that will continue for some time into the future. And so European allies should be spending more on defense and deterrence. But the problem with those figures you just cited is that those refer to overall defense spending, not the percentage that the United States contributes to NATO itself. And the reality is that even if the U.S. tomorrow withdrew from NATO, we would still be spending that money on defense. In fact, President Trump has asked for one point five trillion dollar defense budget for next year. So that defense spending is not going away because the U.S. projects power globally. And so, yes, all that said, of course, it's important for European allies to spend more. But frankly, the fiscal constraints in Europe are such that that five percent target, that's not going to happen for at least a decade, if ever. Even until last year, Jim, I believe that most countries, well, there were I think about a third of the countries had not even gotten to the to the two percent level. But but the case that Trump has been making that the other allies aren't contributing enough. Do you agree? Well, it's like what Mike said. I don't think Donald Trump. Well, I know Donald Trump doesn't understand the budget process. He looks on that as if it's a country club. NATO is a country club and everyone owes dues. And if you don't pay your dues, then you should be kicked out. And that's not what it's all about. This is about nations putting money into their defense budgets and buying the military equipment that they need to contribute to the deterrence of of of Europe. It's it is it's something where nations have to play their part. And if they don't, then the U.S. in the past has had to shoulder a lot of that burden because nations weren't spending enough. Now they are. Like Mike said, this is going to take a lot of time to get there. They're making quicker progress than I thought I would see. But Putin has a lot to do with that. The hybrid attacks that he's been making, the estimates coming from intelligence communities that that this could be something that Putin might be up to some, you know, tricky things over the next couple of years. That's what's really taken hold now in allied capitals, particularly those that are facing Russia. So the money is getting into the defense budgets. The problem now is how it's going to be spent. And is there enough in terms of defense industrial input to satisfy the needs that the Europeans are going to have to try to do their bit in terms of deterrence? We just saw Mark Rutte in the Oval Office making the case that the allies are stepping up. He's been bending over backwards since he became secretary general in an almost embarrassing way, frankly, to appease President Trump. There was that infamous quote he was widely mocked for when he called Trump daddy. He tried to smooth that over a little bit later. But Mark Rutte today was asked about those efforts to placate Trump in a press conference at the NATO summit. Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments where he talks about conquering Greenland, talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that it doesn't seem like the old Mark Rutte would approve of. Does this have any effect on your self-respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing? You know, what I always do is acknowledge when praise is due, and I think we should praise Donald Trump for the fact that NATO is so much stronger. And it makes Europe stronger, it makes Europe more relevant for the United States as a partner. Michael, aside from getting to the spending levels that Trump keeps hammering them about, is there anything more that Rutte and the other NATO leaders can do to make sure that Trump stays in the fold? Well, obviously Mark Rutte is trying to keep Trump in the fold through this flattery, and that's been his approach since when he took office. But, you know, I don't think it's really working. I think what's driving defense spending is absolutely the threat from Russia. And so we saw during the Biden administration, we had six allies at the start of the Biden administration that spent 2% of GDP on defense. At the end, it was 23. Was it President Biden's doing? No, I don't think so. I think it was a threat from Russia, and the threat obviously persists to today. And so Rutte has to be careful because he's supposed to be the honest broker, and sometimes the things he says seem like there's a little bit of a gap between his rhetoric and reality. You did mention, Michael, Article 5, which really is at the center of the NATO charter. When one country is attacked, the others rally to their defense. The first time it was invoked was after the 9-11 attacks. There has been a response, understandably, from those angry American allies. They called those claims disrespectful and wrong. Our Alex Baird digs more into what Article 5 stands for. To really unpack the reality here, we need to jump back to the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 here in Washington, D.C. That's President Harry Truman there in the middle in the Oval Office signing the proclamation. Now let's dig into what that document actually says. For us, the most important article is Article 5. It says right there at the top that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. That triggers a mutual defense obligation, and that's going to be really important. Right now, these are the members of NATO in 2026. That's 32 members. Let's jump back once again to 2001, when there were just 19 members. And then came 9-11. The attacks on the Twin Towers in New York changed everything. Less than 24 hours after those attacks, NATO allies met and invoked Article 5. That's the only time that's ever happened. The Alliance then launched its first ever anti-terror operations. That led to Afghanistan and the multinational military mission that was set up by the UN Security Council. And that was taken over completely by a coalition of NATO allies and partners in 2003. Over two decades, 2,461 American soldiers were killed. But more than 1,100 non-US NATO coalition soldiers were also killed. Denmark, for instance, had the highest per capita death rate of any coalition nation. So when Trump said in January that the US has never needed NATO and that they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines in Afghanistan, all NATO members would say that those numbers speak for themselves. So Allied troops have paid the ultimate price to stand alongside American troops when the US needed help. Jim, do you think if a NATO ally were attacked today, and the most likely scenario, of course, is that Russia could attack a country on NATO's eastern flank, do you think the US today would send troops to defend them? In the past, there would be no doubt the Americans would be there if there was an attack on the Allies. This is the first time that I would say in answer to a question like that, I just don't know. And that's based on what Trump has said in the past. Based on his relationship with Putin, he might say, well, I'm going to call Putin on the phone. You guys can go shoot some bullets at him, but I'm going to. We just don't know what he would do. And that is something that Putin certainly has noticed, as have the Allies, who are doing scenario planning and thinking about what would they do if the United States was not involved. So this is a very different kettle of fish, as we say, than it has been in the past. We just don't know the answer to that question. Michael, there was a bright spot in this summit. President Zelensky of Ukraine was there. And the US is now going to allow the Ukrainians to license the fabrication of Patriot missiles to defend their skies, which is a big move. And it's been very welcomed by the Ukrainians. How much of an impact do you think that's going to have? Well, I think it's an unambiguously good development. But let's remember, Trump has not yet he admitted he hasn't yet spoken to Lockheed Martin, which is the company that produces these. So there's a lot of negotiations that are going to follow. And realistically, getting factories built and getting those interceptors off the production lines, we're looking at a minimum of about five years. So, yes, these are extremely valuable capability for Ukraine. Most of the hits they're taking in their cities are from ballistic missiles. That's what they can't defend against with just drones. They need the PAC three to be able to do it. So it's a good development. But is it going to be ready anytime soon? I have my doubts. President Zelensky quipped that he couldn't go to Moscow as as after President Putin invitation because it's too dangerous because of the Ukrainian drones that are in the over the Russian skies. So clearly, President Zelensky has some some wind in his sails. Where do you see that that fight standing? Do you think that there has been a change in the energy and the momentum there, Jim? Definitely there has been a change. I worry that where there's a change in momentum favorable to Ukraine, something could happen in terms of counter drone technology as something the Russians might do that can shift it to. And so we have to be worried about that. But right now it is definitely in the in the corner of Ukraine is putting pressure on Putin. This might be a time where that pressure will have Putin thinking more seriously about a ceasefire. We'll have to see. But they've already talked Trump and Putin about restarting these talks. So let's see where it goes. But right now, Ukraine's looking pretty good. All right. And the final prediction, one word, if you will, from each of you. Do you think that the U.S. is is going to be pulling out of NATO? No, I don't. Not formally. But the thing to look at is U.S. capabilities in Europe. If we withdraw most of our fighter combat aircraft, if we withdraw key enablers and key capabilities that make the alliance what it is as a whole, then it kind of withers on the vine. So not formally, but look to see what capabilities we pull out of Europe. Jim, that as well as stepping away from leadership. I think we're not going to be that presence in the alliance shaping where it goes, getting allies to do what they need to do the way we have been in the past. Our leadership is going to be a bit weaker than it has been in the past. The Europeans will be taking our place. Yeah, that's a fascinating few days. Thank you both for joining me. I really appreciate the discussion. Jim Townsend, the former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy, and Ambassador Michael Carpenter, who led Europe for the Biden NSC. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much for joining us. We're here in Washington. I'm handing back to Richard Gaisford and Al Jazeera's global headquarters in Doha. Well, that's it for this edition of This Is America. We'll be back at the same time on Thursday asking whether the Supreme Court is empowering or limiting Donald Trump and his agenda. That's at 1830 GMT, 2.30 p.m. Eastern Time here in the United States. But for now, though, from Washington, D.C., it's goodbye.