Trump and NATO: "Americans are serious about it"
Shortly after the election of Donald Trump, Europe comes up with the question: Who protects us now, does the new US president want to meet his NATO obligations only against Bares? Is it like the former US ambassador in Germany says: "The American umbrella over Europe has gone away forever"? "No", says Rainer Arnold (SPD), Chairman of the Defense Committee in the Bundestag. In the end everything could be better than before.
Mr Arnold, the former US Ambassador John Kornblum warns that Germany and Europe are on the military after the election of Donald Trumps. Is that so?
We already had the impression that the Americans are serious about saying that Europeans have to take more responsibility in NATO. The US is more oriented in the Atlantic-Pacific region. This is certainly strengthened by Trump.
There is, however, a big difference between "being more self-centered" and "being alone in the future".
One must not underestimate the fact that there are many members of the republic, who are proven Nato-people, among the Republicans. "Being alone" would mean that the alliance would be divided. This is unimaginable for me.
Also not with Trump, with whom one never knows, what still comes to him?
Not with him either. If he were to say that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty (which governs the alliance case, ed. Edit.) No longer applies to him, then the alliance would be broken. This is the core of the common deterrence.
It is said that even under Clinton the Europeans had been asked to pay.
Under Clinton, too, the pressure on the European pillar of NATO would have increased. This has already begun under Obama.
Trump threatens, for example, the small Baltic states that they would have to pay American protection in the future.
The Baltic States have all military spending of two percent of the national budget, as provided by NATO. If Trump were to put the ax in this way, this would mean the following in Europe: Until now, we had always had the problem that the Baltic and the Poles did not rely on Europe but rather on the USA. The European security policy was slowed by their dynamism. If this is reversed and the Eastern Europeans realize the importance of a common defense policy in Europe, that is exactly on our line. This is also the effect with which I reckon: the compulsion to be united again is more visible. This may have a positive effect.
They say parts and have, for example, called Poland, which is always based on the USA. But even Hungary, for example, is only going its own way.
It is possible that not all begin at the beginning. But if Trump were to make his announcements come true, all would be fast. Everyone needs protection, and not alone. Then, from this pressure, something positive could emerge. Jean-Claude Juncker even spoke of a European army. Although this is not a utopia, it still has a vision until its realization. But a European Defense Union, with a joint headquarters, with a labor-intensive planning of the armed forces, instead of national planning, is a bitter necessity if we want to use the scarce money meaningfully. An example: We have the Medevac helicopter, Lithuania has the doctors that you can put there.
Balten and Poland feel strongly threatened by Russia. Can you understand that?
Yes, from their history, we must understand their condition. And we all know that they alone would not have a military chance.
Mr Arnold, the former US Ambassador John Kornblum warns that Germany and Europe are on the military after the election of Donald Trumps. Is that so?
We already had the impression that the Americans are serious about saying that Europeans have to take more responsibility in NATO. The US is more oriented in the Atlantic-Pacific region. This is certainly strengthened by Trump.
There is, however, a big difference between "being more self-centered" and "being alone in the future".
One must not underestimate the fact that there are many members of the republic, who are proven Nato-people, among the Republicans. "Being alone" would mean that the alliance would be divided. This is unimaginable for me.
Also not with Trump, with whom one never knows, what still comes to him?
Not with him either. If he were to say that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty (which governs the alliance case, ed. Edit.) No longer applies to him, then the alliance would be broken. This is the core of the common deterrence.
Is that clear to him?
I'm pretty sure you'll make it clear to him. We know nothing about his policy. I have the impression that he does not know it himself. But we know something about his character: He has many negative qualities, I think. But his character also means that it does not itch at all what he said yesterday.It is said that even under Clinton the Europeans had been asked to pay.
Under Clinton, too, the pressure on the European pillar of NATO would have increased. This has already begun under Obama.
Trump threatens, for example, the small Baltic states that they would have to pay American protection in the future.
The Baltic States have all military spending of two percent of the national budget, as provided by NATO. If Trump were to put the ax in this way, this would mean the following in Europe: Until now, we had always had the problem that the Baltic and the Poles did not rely on Europe but rather on the USA. The European security policy was slowed by their dynamism. If this is reversed and the Eastern Europeans realize the importance of a common defense policy in Europe, that is exactly on our line. This is also the effect with which I reckon: the compulsion to be united again is more visible. This may have a positive effect.
How would we stand against Russia in the future?
Security can not only mean spending more money. This would mean putting more money into an inefficient European structure. We need a much closer interlinking of the armed forces' capacity and division of labor in Europe. We have one and a half million soldiers - that's more than the US have. We spend a total of $ 270 billion on armed forces - more than 40 percent of US spending. For this, however, we get only 15 to 20 percent of the capabilities the US has. At this point, we see that there is no point in spending more and more money without creating truly effective European structures, with military cooperation and with political processes that make it effective. This is now announced.Do you see even the slightest willingness among the Europeans?
It is currently changing. Regardless of Trump, we have seen a whole new dynamic in Europe for several months. For example, the Franco-German paper, the concept of Federica Mogherini (both concerning the technical and management-compatible compatibility of European armies), the announcements of Italy and Spain, The process. It would also help to look again at the Treaty of Lisbon, which specifies the process of structured military cooperation in which only parts of the EU can participateThey say parts and have, for example, called Poland, which is always based on the USA. But even Hungary, for example, is only going its own way.
It is possible that not all begin at the beginning. But if Trump were to make his announcements come true, all would be fast. Everyone needs protection, and not alone. Then, from this pressure, something positive could emerge. Jean-Claude Juncker even spoke of a European army. Although this is not a utopia, it still has a vision until its realization. But a European Defense Union, with a joint headquarters, with a labor-intensive planning of the armed forces, instead of national planning, is a bitter necessity if we want to use the scarce money meaningfully. An example: We have the Medevac helicopter, Lithuania has the doctors that you can put there.
Is it possible to ignore the costs that are attributable to Germany?
No, and there's no point in speculating. I am still of the opinion that the two-percent target is completely utopian for Germany. We do not have to use 68 billion euros instead of 35 billion euros. It should be that Germany develops roughly the skills that France and the UK have - that is the benchmark for me.Less their nuclear weapons ...
You have to figure it out, but we do not need any nuclear skills either. But in order to be able to do the same as France and Great Britain, we still have to put a few billions on it.Balten and Poland feel strongly threatened by Russia. Can you understand that?
Yes, from their history, we must understand their condition. And we all know that they alone would not have a military chance.
And if you start from today's reality?
The most important thing I would say to the Balthans is that you have to make sure that the Russian-speaking minority knows about you every day, they live on the better side of the fence. Then they are not vulnerable to Russian propaganda. The concern that Putin is attacking the Baltic States with tanks is not realistic.Not even if he can train exactly that every year during military maneuvers?
Putin knows: Article 5 would in this case trigger a world war. But that he does what he has done in Ukraine - the hybrid warfare with which he tries to destabilize Ukraine from within - that is a concern that must be taken seriously.Trumps approach does not worry you at all?
I believe that as Europeans we have to do one more thing - independently of Trump. But I can see already that this strengthens. My great concern is that he is denouncing the agreement with Iran, and that ten years of arduous diplomacy will be negated with a pen. I am afraid that because many American Congressmen have always criticized the deal. He would also have support from his people. But he would not have that if he tried to smash NATO.Share This:
No Comment to " Trump and NATO: "Americans are serious about it" "