At a recent election rally in South Carolina, Donald Trump said he would “encourage” aggressors such as Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to Nato allies he considers to have not met their financial obligations.
Trump’s comments, however offensive, may merely be an electoral strategy.
Why should, say, a South Carolinian citizen see their taxes go towards defending faraway lands, especially if they believe these partners are not willing to pay equally?
This article was written by William Rees of the University of Exeter and is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
But there’s also a logic to his remarks that Europe should recognise, especially in light of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Many European nations need to build up their own security capacities again after years of lax spending on defence.
Regardless, such public comments from a presidential candidate have long been unthinkable. Since the second world war, America has sought out allies. What would it mean for the nation’s security, as well as that of the wider world, should they forego them?
British precedent
The modern US-led global order is in many ways a modern iteration of something developed by Great Britain at the beginning of the 19th century. Britain used the peace negotiations that followed the Napoleonic wars (1803–1815) to try and limit the power of expansive land empires like that of defeated France.
The 19th century is sometimes referred to as “Pax Britannica” (British peace) because of the relative absence of conflict between major European powers, with the notable exception of the Crimean War (1853–1856). It lasted until a unified German state emerged as a land power in continental Europe in 1871, upending the security presumptions of the post-Napoleonic peace.
One of Britain’s key reasons for fighting two world wars against Germany was to maintain its version of a global order. But, in winning, Britain depleted its finances – and capacity to maintain an empire – through borrowing from the US.
The US had become the new economic heavyweight, with a military built up and spread by wartime necessity. Its adherence to basic principles meant the British did not resist America’s newfound global primacy.
Free trade was to remain sacrosanct. Sea trade routes were defended as these were (and still are) vital for US economic superiority. The US would also maintain the kind of alliances that the British tended to turn to during times of war, where coalitions of allies share the costs and persevere towards victory.
Lonely at the top?
The US would actively shape the world to its own liking in the post-war period. After the hyper-nationalistic conquests that were characteristic of its enemies in the first and second world wars, the US wanted no more empires.
It set up institutions dedicated to spurring free trade and global stability like the UN, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And it formed alliances, most notably Nato, which included befriending wartime enemies like Germany and committing themselves to a long-term global role.
These alliances allowed the US to station troops overseas in strategic positions without having to administer a costly and potentially discontented empire, like the British and basically every world power had done before them.
Much of this was motivated by the Cold War. The Soviets had exchanged Nazi occupation of eastern Europe for their own. And it was widely believed that in the absence of US security guarantees, western Europe would also be invaded and made communist – an ideology that the US considered incompatible with its own.
The great power competition soon led to US involvement in other zones of communist activity, such as Asia. This was a period in which the US intervened in foreign governments and carried out or supported ethically questionable conflicts. For US politicians, however, it was generally bipartisan to believe that US intervention was justified by a bigger conflict between democracy and authoritarianism.
US power was also different to, say, the heyday of the Spanish empire in the 16th century. This empire did an excellent job of antagonising other powers and depleting its own vast resources in endless wars over honour and Catholicism.
Although certainly not universally loved, US power is not completely resented. This has much to do with America’s globally exported culture, from Hollywood to hip-hop. But also in how its power can be articulated as mutually beneficial to other nations, both in terms of trade and security.
We do not live in a peaceful world. But it is widely acknowledged that the world would become more dangerous if the US were to suddenly disengage. US security guarantees, for instance, disincentivise allies like Germany and Japan from developing nuclear weapons for their own safety.
Global security is American security
Supporting US allies, which was once a bipartisan issue in American politics, is becoming a zero-sum game – even though it is just about the most dangerous issue to do this with.
Bringing global security guarantees into question is exactly what states hostile to the US want. They know it weakens a world order that protects democracies, global trade, and weaker states that could otherwise be imposed upon militarily.
The US protects these not merely as an act of charity, but also because they are in the vital interests of America’s own safety, even if it can seem indirect to some American voters or the politicians who recently held up aid for Ukraine.
Ironically, a worldview that sees raw, almost mercantilist, selfishness as the entirety of foreign policy is exactly the thing that the US’s global order of free trade and respecting national sovereignty has discouraged for almost a century.
If America First becomes America Only, it might be a world view that certain regimes wish to emulate. But morally, it will not do what the nation managed in the past. To convert souls to an American future.
William Rees, PhD Candidate in Modern American History, University of Exeter
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Fewer allies? If that criminal, lunatic, motor mouth, Trump regains the presidency the issue seems more likely the security of the free world with the USA becoming more isolationalist & accomodating to major dicators who threaten freedom. “Reckless, ruthless and careless,” seems to me to also describe him & I also fear he’ll drag the US into either another civil war or a slide into one party rule. The USA may become the unreliable ally, which would be music to the ears of the likes of Putin or Xi Xinping.
I’m not a fan either of Biden given his sudden pull out of Afghanistan handing the Taliban victory & virtually giving Russia the green light to invade UKR by stating no US troops would get involved(as Boris said also regarding UK troops).
Post war peace, freedom & democracy(where it existed) are values beyond simply the spread of US culture. Hopefully, while we all need to spend more on & take our own security more seriously, the USA will remain a cornerstone of freedom, liberty, democracy & international law going forward. It seems insane that amy presidential candidate should suggest otherewise.
Trump the business man needs reminding how handsomely rewarded the American industrial complexes have been due to these alliances?
America became ‘Great’ predominantly due to it. But then it never acknowledged that in the first place which is why it is arguing with itself now about why it seems to be disappearing, despite a rather flourishing economy compared to most.
I can’t stand Trump, the way he treats women is appalling, his continued efforts to ignore a riot in the US congress as being his fault etc etc etc.
If he gets elected we are in deep trouble and amount of cooing, sucking up to him or anything else will get us out of the mess Europe (yes we Europeans) and NATO will be in.
IMHO it’s time for the UK to sit down and have a serious conversation about how we deal with it collectively as European NATO not EU members.
It isn’t like we don’t have Friends and partners who wouldn’t mind us back in the fold of Defence and Security cooperation as we do effectively counter the Arse dragging tendency of Germany.
Unfortunately Trump is a bit like a busted clock it’s right twice a day and he is right about 2 things.
Firstly European NATO took its foot off the Gas in return for cheap Russian Gas and some are still asleep. He is right when he says we haven’t been paying our Bar Tab.
Now I didn’t think about this till yesterday when listening to something on Radio 4, and I now think he got something else right.
Secondly. I don’t believe in a “Deep State” but I do now firmly believe that there is a consistent and pervasive ethos within part of our Governing System that actually works against the overwhelming will of the British People. And has done so for decades regardless of who we elect.
Listening yesterday to “The Week in Westminster” on Radio 4 was a turning point for me. About 24 minutes in (you can listen to it on BBC sounds) was Lord Nicholas MacPherson who is the former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury.
They were discussing the economy and he was pretty upbeat about how things are going, which was a pleasant surprise.
Increased Defence spending was raised and his reply was dismissive in the extremely revealing.
”I’m a former Treasury Official and I have never wanted to give Money to the Ministry of Defence”.
Look him up his background you won’t be too surprised !
The United States has a history of being isolationist, Trump knows this. Let’s face it the American population were content to sit back and rake in the cash from the British at the start of WW2 and let us fight it out with the nazi’s. It makes you wonder, if they’d have ever joined the war, if it wasn’t for Pearl Harbour. If they choose to go back down that route, more fool them. We need to make sure our own house is in order. Our defences are woeful. It beggars belief that not a single mention of defence was made in the budget, while a major war rages in Europe. That’s my opinion.
Roosevelt risked a lot supporting Britain as best he could there were times, like for example when US pilots were flying Catalina’s with British colleagues (who magically became Canadians) that had it got out could have cost his Presidency. Meanwhile fascist sympathisers like Ford and General Motors were more than happy to supply the German War machine and of course old man Kennedy was forced to be recalled under suspicion of being a German spy. It’s such duplicity that made America ‘great’ and no where is it stronger than in US business practice so we can well imagine the machinations of someone with even by those standards is deemed a charlatan and maverick. Though at least you know when he is lying, his lips move. Yes Europe needs to unite and work together and punch our weight. Britain has understandably been, minded that way as the best tactics to hold the trans Atlantic Alliance together, to obstruct a united European defence structure but now it really is time to construct one. For at times I really don’t know, despite their forces fully understanding of the realities, that increasing numbers of politicians really do understand what side they are actually on, or are certainly very confused by the choice.
Euro Anti-Trump media just reeks of whining about the gravy train coming to a stop. Guess you’ll have to turn down the welfare state a bit to pay for defense again.
And people if you needed any spur to action this comment pretty much reveals the short sighted attitude across the pond who have many constituents, like they did in the thirties hold a soft spot and certain admiration for European dictators. Fact is the US makes a mint out of selling arms to Europe while doing its best to obstruct European companies competing on the World market so the only gravy train that will be coming to an end if Europe fails to retain independence would be the US one after that traditional act of selling to both sides evaporates anyway. But then for a dodgy businessman that will seem quite appealing as it will be those who follow after him who will have to face the true effects of such policies World wide and explain the effects on the US economy thereafter. The West lives together or falls together because one thing is certain if Europe falls under Russian hegemony Taiwan, Japan and South Korea will not last long in their freedoms followed by Australia most like, leaving Asia, Africa and increasingly South America under Chinese hegemony, so good luck selling your goods to Canada.
The Romans learnt the value of allies after the Social War, the British learnt the value of allies after 1857. Let us hope that the U.S doesn’t have to have a similar experience to be reminded of the need for friends across the world.
Great words, the Americans as we have even heard on this thread can’t get out of their minds how they twice saved Europe. They totally fail (their greatest talent being the rewriting of history since 1776) to comprehend that had the Japanese not forced them into a war and then Hitlers stupidity in declaring war on them thus bringing them into the actual real war, that the bigger picture would almost certainly have led to their own demise, the question only being if it was to be by Germany or Russia and there would never have been the greatness MAGA keep wanting to mythically get back to.
No technology transfer to, not even the nuclear bomb on that side of the Atlantic If Britain had capitulated in 1940 as old Man Kennedy had predicted and all but Churchill would have brought about, then who would have had all that destructive technology first and the drive and means to develop it I wonder, almost certainly NOT the US who would have sat there ignoring the realities developing in those far away Countries that they knew so little about without any real impetus to defend against the wider implications. As such I guess they have the luxury of making the same mistake second time around. Just a shame that the likes of Merkel through neglect gave the delusional Trump and his acolytes yet more Kool Aid to feed off of.
The problem I have is that there is a core of truth in what trumps says…it’s just that I don’t really think he gives much of a shit about truths and wise decisions.
But the truth is the US is the only western power that has been paying close to the requirements for reasonable defence at 3.5% GDP..European nations are not spending what they should and the 2% min is for NATO is well below the floor of what nations should be spending to manage the present geopolitical risks.
Our enemies are using a mercantile strategy against the west and that has causes massive damage to western security ( industrial capacity is a core part of security) Neo Liberalism has been shown to at risk from attack by mercantile systems such as china…even Taiwan has used a modern form of mercantilist to lock the west into defending it….Neo liberalism free markets only really work across groups of peer nations who agree to some basic principles and rules of the road…not when being attacked by an avowed enemy mercantilist states.
But Trumps is close to going to far and America first is at risk of damaging the western power blocks unity ( or what unity we have) and US hegemony is based on leading a western power block…an isolated U.S. would be far more at risk from China in the same way an isolated Europe would be more at risk from Russia.
US at risk from china. 😂 That’s a laugh.
As soon as they figure out how to cross a Pacific Ocean with 70 nuclear attack submarines swimming in it.
What do you think will happen if china invades Taiwan and the USN reacts into the western pacific..it will be a bloodbath for both navies…there will then be a long drawn out conflict between the two most powerful nations on earth..economically, politically, industrially and militarily..if you don’t think the U.S. would not come out of that conflict completely mauled you have not read the same evidence base as I have…and I’ve widely read the very best research around a likely china U.S. conflict. Two nations the size of the US and china don’t go toe to toe without profound pain and risk on both sides….
Indeed even US run computer war games in any conflict around Taiwan showed decimation for a US fleet 5 out of the 6 runnings of various potential scenarios. I doubt the odds are getting better since they were run. Taiwan goes and western industry and markets are decimated for years so hardly a win win scenario. The only thing holding China back is that such damage and conflict will hit its own economy very badly too for some time as it still relies on western markets and thus it balances risk against benefit but the time will come and personally the date often given; 2027 is the same as that often proposed for a Russian attack on NATO in Europe. If the Aus thinks it can ignore one for the sake of the other it would be like ignoring helping Russia on the Eastern front thinking you can win it purely on the Western front during WW2. Naive in the extreme.
Oh dear and that’s why we are all sleep walking into a threat of our own design. Cut off an Octopus’s tentacles and the head becomes a simple target later, if you even need to bother.
Even the Americans are concerned about the number of submarines they will have available by the way to give a more literal an answer, so that’s nothing to sneer at.
Spot on it is in our joint interests, sadly Europe has neglected its defence probably in part to try to calm the very Russian ‘fears’ post Cold War it is now exploiting as an excuse to attack anyway only exacerbated by said defence weakness. Meanwhile the US understandably pissed by this accepted dereliction of duty is running right into the Chino/Russian trap and going all isolationist. What do they say about what comes before a fall? Liberal democracies cannot survive in isolation economically or in defence (Ancient Greece might have taught us that surely) and the US may think it is immune (though if it is so confident then why the feeling of decline internally) from rivals but it sure is not. It cannot survive in a vacuum it needs all the friends and allies it can get or all the domino’s esp those who play up to the US under duress (probably most of the global South) will fall over. Biting off the European nose to spite one’s face is only a policy that a very slow witted, short sighted delusional businessman or politician would do for the sake of a momentary self serving glory hunting power buzz. Hey thank good we don’t gave one of those on the horizon.
Dr. William Rees is spot on with his article, but many of the comments below are misplaced. Many I think miss the whole point. Trump also said that for those countries who are prepared to pay the 2.5% of GDP on defence as agreed at their acceptance into NATO, he would 100% stand with them in their defence against any aggressor. In another statement he says that the USA pays 90% (I know that is wrong it is more like 80%) of the NATO budget with the remainder – 20% – coming from the remaining members. Britain pays less than 2% of GDP into NATO yet would we expect the USA to step up to the mark in our defence? I think most people on here would say (or assume): “Yes!”.
Trump also pointed out that there is a lot of water between Europe and the USA, he has no qualms about walking away from NATO if other members are not prepared to pay their bills. I don’t see a problem with what he has said.
Trump is no “Motor Mouth”, or “Lunatic” (Frank62) he is a qualified business man with a heck of a reputation for “Making Money” and “Cutting a Deal” where he sees a profit for his country. Sure he’s a nationalist, but what would you rather have in charge of your country? A president who looks after his own country first, or someone who cares more about the other end of the world? In the past the USA has ALWAYS begun from the standpoint of: “How do we best protect American assets?” – whether that is through trade, diplomatic relations, or military alliances.
Remember a politician’s first job is to protect his own country and his own people; currently a premise sadly lacking in any political party in the UK and many others across Europe in the forlorn hope the USA “WILL” come running to our aid as they did during WWII – for now they may with good reason not do so!
Again very naive, see my explanation above of what the future would almost certainly have been for the US had it not been forced into the Second World War which itself only happened because by almost a miracle Britain did not capitulate. The US had both a very close shave and a near miss on the circumstances that drove its post war economic supremacy even if we all tend to stupidly take it all for granted now. Fact is that is even more certain now if the US goes isolationist. A friend said to me weeks back I don’t think Britain should get involved until the enemy (in this case Russia) were at the Channel. I said in that scenario the war was already lost. It would be similar naivety if the US took a similar stance for all the reasons I have already stated in this thread so won’t repeat again. Even the mighty US would not survive in any meaningful way if Europe fell under Russian or indeed. Chinese hegemony it would just take time to realise it. Western liberal capitalist economies cannot exist in isolation. Do we really need to learn that fact the hard way. Putting your Country first means supporting a World order that allows such economies to flourish and seriously the idea of picking and choosing who you defend in Europe is arrogant nonsense if Trump believes that is feasible how the hell would that work if you needed to get from one battlefront to another as selective Countries are left to fall? How would you support the Baltics without German airbases for example, it would lead to masses of US deaths and very possibly strategic defeat. Wonder how that would go down with the US electorate. No we all have to be sensible here, it’s because too many aren’t being that Putin and China are seeing the opportunities to win long term especially acting in unison and that is very dangerous and makes it all the more vital the West does not be omecisunited for all our sakes including the US.
No Country came to take Britain’s plinth. No we are here, in this mess.