Recalling his meetings with European leaders as president, Donald Trump warned at a campaign rally over the weekend that Russia would do “whatever it takes” to NATO members that don’t meet alliance spending guidelines. He suggested that he intended to do so, sparking new controversy.
This follows months of efforts by a small group of populist House Republicans to block a major aid package needed by Ukraine to stop the Kremlin from taking over the country.
Both President Trump’s comments and the blocking of aid undermine vital U.S. interests.
However, the first method may be more theatrical and ultimately more manageable. The second is much more dangerous.
To understand the risks, you need a little background.
Tom Brokaw aptly chronicled my father’s generation, which won World War II, as “The Greatest Generation.”
Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson aptly “sage” the American politicians who created the international organizations that guaranteed unprecedented postwar prosperity without great-power wars: the United Nations, NATO, and the International Monetary Fund. I called it.
Unfortunately, after previous generations of great Americans helped win World War I, America did not produce a group of enlightened leaders to match.
Instead, they refused to join the League of Nations, distanced themselves from world leadership, and stood by for years as aggressive great powers rose to successive attacks on small, distant nations that were “unworthy” of their support. There were officials.
The net result of America and other democracies’ lethargy in the 1930s was another, more devastating world war in which more than 60 million people died, including more than 400,000 Americans.
NATO, more than any other organization, has worked to prevent great power wars, deter large-scale aggressors, and provide the foundation for the past 75 years of peaceful economic growth that has greatly benefited the American people. We’ve done a lot of things.
And the absolute core of NATO is Article 5 of the treaty, interpreted as an ironclad commitment by member states to defend allies under attack.
It is therefore “wise” for senior US politicians to suggest that they will not enforce Article 5 in the case of allies that spend less than necessary to defend themselves.
If Moscow and Beijing’s enemies believed that the United States was not complying with Article 5, their actions would be more provocative and the world a more dangerous place.
This is why senior officials in the United States and Europe condemned President Trump’s remarks.
But this is not the end of the story.
A decades-old problem is that many NATO allies spend far less on defense than the United States, falling short of the NATO spending guideline of 2% of gross domestic product.
As president, Trump was harshly critical of NATO, especially on spending issues, and had greater success than any previous president in getting NATO allies to cooperate more in defending themselves.
Although his tactics were crude, they paid off, and his administration took other steps, including a NATO summit, to keep the alliance strong.
The question is whether President Trump’s recent comments are a page in his old playbook — in which case the situation is manageable — or a sign of a more concerted effort to separate the U.S. from NATO. I wonder if it’s the first one.
There’s no way to tell at this point.
Then there is the more salient issue of US military and economic support for Ukraine.
Why is this important?
The answer is simple.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is our enemy.
At least since his infamous 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, he has pursued policies aimed at undermining key US interests in Europe and beyond, including weakening NATO and the European Union.
President Putin is collaborating with America’s enemies such as China, Iran, and North Korea.
And while China is more dangerous in the long run, Russia is the only nuclear power and has pursued some of the most provocative policies, including invasions of Georgia and Ukraine.
Despite President Putin’s lies to Tucker Carlson last week, Russia is trying to regain political influence across the former Soviet Union.
President Biden said the Kremlin’s victory in Ukraine would likely be followed by an attack on the Baltic states or Poland.
Chairman Mike Johnson said such a victory could embolden China to invade Taiwan.
All of this means that the best way to strengthen U.S. security is to give Ukraine the help it needs to thwart Putin.
The approximately $78 billion in aid that the United States has given Ukraine over the past two years (less than 5% of our country’s defense budget), combined with much larger aid from Europe, has destroyed approximately 50% of Moscow’s conventional military capabilities. .
This is a huge security return on your investment.
If aid is permanently cut off, there is a good chance that Putin will win.
It would be a major blow to US world leadership, far bigger than its disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and would only encourage China’s attack on Taiwan and further Iranian provocations against the US and Israel in the Middle East. .
The Senate passed a $95 billion aid package, including $60 billion for Ukraine. However, Prime Minister Johnson quickly deemed the bill inappropriate.
A majority of the House supports the bill, but the speaker has the power to allow or block a vote. A small group within the party is threatening to remove Mr Johnson from office if he allows a vote on support.
There are two ways to vote on this package.
Either the speaker reconsiders, or a majority of the House of Representatives (218 members) sign the expulsion petition.
Petitions are less common because they take time and require bipartisan cooperation.
But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is considering the move.
In summary, aid plans for Ukraine (and Israel and Taiwan) are blocked by a small group in the House of Representatives.
Its voice is enormous, as was Charles Lindbergh and his isolationist comrades in the years before World War II.
In 1941, the group worked hard to prevent the passage of the Lend-Lease Act, which would have provided Britain with weapons to continue the fight against Nazi Germany.
But Congress voted and passed it.
If voting were allowed now, the result would be the same as in 1941.
A strong House majority would send Ukraine the means to stop Putin.
The stakes are high.
Let’s hope that wise men and women can be found to prevent the next generation of American soldiers from having to fight a major war.
John Herbst is director of the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center and former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under the George W. Bush administration.
