Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

2024 has been a year full of surprises. The latest (probably) is the ‘threat’ that Donald Trump, president-elect of the United States of America, addressed to NATO when he was still on the campaign trail and reiterated a few days after his trip to Europe and the fall of Ba’athist Syria: pull the United States out of the Atlantic Treaty. But is this really possible?

NATO is North Atlantic, nothing more?

It is first necessary to review what NATO is.

When we talk about NATO we have to distinguish what it is, what it looks like and what it is not.

It was founded as a military alliance in 1949 with the signing of the Washington Treaty with the primary purpose of the collective defense of its members.

Article 1 states that member states undertake, under the UN Charter, to settle international disputes peacefully and to avert the threat and use of force. Already from these first words it is clear that this was a huge mockery. But let us go further. The interesting part comes in the infamous Article 5, which provides for the adoption of the principle that an attack against one or more is to be considered an attack against all.

However, there is also another, often forgotten, article that plays a key role: Art. 8 states that member states cannot sign anything that conflicts with the Atlantic Treaty. This constraint is of fundamental importance because it creates a sort of ‘prison’ for anyone who joins NATO, ensuring that, de facto, NATO assumes a position of leadership in all the military and foreign policy, but also domestic policy, of the member countries. Everything, but absolutely everything, must go through the government of the United States of America, as also reiterated in Art. 10.

NATO was proposed in the context of the Cold War, which followed the conclusion of the Second World War. On that 4 April 1949, twelve European and North American countries (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States) signed the Treaty, formalizing an alliance that was supposed to counter the Soviet threat and promote stability in Europe, according to the post-war American vision.

During the Cold War years, the Alliance was not only defensive but represented an instrument for the gradual expansion of American interference towards the East: it developed a complex military structure, with the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers in Europe (SACEUR) as its nerve centre, located in Brussels, whose military integration, with shared troops and resources, was a key element in keeping the entire European continent under the heel of the boot. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, NATO found itself redefining its role. The end of the Soviet threat led to a broadening of NATO’s mission, which began to include peacekeeping operations, crisis management and humanitarian interventions. Eastward enlargement, with the accession of former communist countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999, marked a new chapter, transforming NATO from a regional alliance to one with global reach. This enlargement process continued with the accession of other Eastern European and Balkan countries, strengthening NATO’s hegemonic dominance on the continent. NATO also developed partnership programs with non-member countries, such as the Partnership for Peace, declaring that it wanted to promote cooperation in the military and security spheres, always with a view to reconquering former Soviet spaces, extending further and further eastwards, where several kilometers later it meets the USA’s other great enemy: China.

It is curious that both in the Treaty and in the historical-political journey from ‘49 to the present day, the term “North Atlantic” has always been used and never the complete Atlantic Ocean. This may seem a silly specification, but it is actually indicative of the location of the political interest of those who founded it. The northern hemisphere, therein lies the centre of power.

This is confirmed by another important detail: no Secretary General (political office) of NATO has ever been American. All of them are European and mostly Northern European. Curious, no? The signing of the treaty took place in Washington, on American soil, and the Articles state that reference is made to the U.S. government, but in fact the political administration has always been left in the hands of Europeans. Jurists could step in and say that this is the application of a principle of legal balancing of powers, and they would be right if only politicians really cared about law, but this is not the case.

The choice of pointing to the White House as the domicile for problems is more of a red herring: the real NATO government is in Europe, with a nice palace in London. The perfidious Albion has never stopped exercising its imperial control, it has only delegated a few Landlords to streamline the workload.

At the post of NATO military chief (military post), on the other hand, we find Americans in large numbers. The U.S. was chosen as the armed arm of the British Crown to do what the UK did not want to do and could no longer do.

To be precise, NATO has the following organizational structure:

– North Atlantic Council: this is the decision-making body, where each member has a representative with equal voting power. Decisions are taken by consensus, which implies that all nations must agree.

– Secretary General: leads the organisation, chairs Council meetings and represents NATO internationally.

– Military Committee: the highest military council, composed of the chiefs of staff of the member nations, which provides military advice and guidance to the Council.

– Command Structure: consisting of the Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) and various regional commands that manage military operations.

A very well thought-out architecture, which may now face a change.

Redesigning Europe according to Trump: no to NATO, yes to the U.S.

If we take Trump’s words to be true, the opening of his presidency at the end of January 2025 could usher in a period of great instability if only because of this issue with NATO – but, as we know, there are many others that will give no small amount of concern.

Removing the U.S. from the Alliance means removing the majority of the military force in use.

In this regard, it is worth resolving beforehand a misunderstanding that could mislead some: not all-American military bases in Europe are NATO and not all NATO bases in Europe are American. Translated: when the Americans won WW2, they permanently established some military bases; when NATO was established in ‘49, it established its bases. The Alliance bases have serving personnel from the various member countries, not just American citizens.

This subtle difference puts the focus back on the crux of the matter: if the U.S. leaves the Treaty, what will become of that military presence on European (and other) soil? Let us try to reason out the problem.

First of all, the Treaty refers to Washington and the U.S. government, so it should be revised and rewritten. A very demanding matter which, legally speaking, would mean a total rewriting of the agreement. In this sense, Trump’s proposal seems more like a provocation to stimulate the reactions of Eastern countries, Russia and China above all, and calibrate American international policy strategy. The reformulation of the treaty is very unlikely, and even more unlikely is its total abrogation, dissolving the Alliance. It is not remotely conceivable that either the U.S. or the UK would agree to give up their thalassocratic status. This is out of the question. At most, a medium-term ‘pause’ could be considered to solve domestic problems and then return to conquest, but the rejection of one’s own thalassocratic identity is an extremely remote eventuality and, in any case, not suddenly feasible.

If we actually try to imagine the removal of the U.S. from NATO, we would see a scenario more or less like the following in Europe: the NATO military set-up would be denatured and drastically and suddenly reduced; the other member states would have to make up the shortfall; in a context of declared war against Russia and commitment on several fronts by NATO contingents, this would imply a stand-by or a quick dismantling of entire bases and/or missions. An extremely dangerous and strategically disadvantageous move. NATO would remain active, but with a very serious problem to solve in a very short time.

All this, however, would not amount to the disappearance of the American armed forces from European soil. Therein lies the point.

Trump’s proposal is not a removal of the American military occupation on European soil. This would only happen with the effective repatriation of all U.S. military present. Removing the U.S. from NATO would mean removing only a part of the men deployed on foreign missions, not the whole. American military personnel would remain on American bases.

This move takes on a different aspect if we consider Trump’s willingness to emancipate himself from the NATO mechanism, and this only has value from the perspective of greater American power for Americans, outside the control of the British Crown, outside the interference of European puppets placed as kapò in front of steel playgrounds that do not belong to them.

From this perspective, Trump is really relaunching MAGA: making America great again through a reassertion of U.S. dominance over its territories of colonial conquest. Europe is still disputed with the UK, so to control it completely one must first untie oneself from the bond of dependence that is NATO. From clear estimates, there are more U.S. soldiers in Europe than NATO soldiers. This is a very important fact. If we then add to this a certain popular American narrative that speaks of numerous generals in the armed forces loyal to Trump and ready to follow his orders in Europe, the picture is complete and plausible

Consequently, Trump could also make proposals for rapprochement with Russia, both as bait for a conflict and as a real attempt to keep Europe from collapsing at least for a time. In the Old Continent, the UK + France axis is the one that has always held political power, while economic power has historically belonged to Germany + Italy. The former pair is the one that recently met Trump for talks on his European tour (held in Paris, not coincidentally), with Macron being the first European politician to have flown to the East since the beginning of SMO to try to protect its interests, both in terms of pacification and raising the level of conflict. Germany and Italy, the two great losers of WW2, on the other hand, were brought to their knees by 30 years of recession and suffered heavily from the impact of sanctions. Italy has maintained a very hostile diplomatic rhetoric towards Russia, an attitude similarly adopted by Germany, which however is now facing a major political crisis and a terrible economic recession. Both countries still have a few cards to play, the first of which has already been launched: rearmament, with the transition to a war economy, and preparation for a direct engagement at the front. Bear in mind that Italy has signed a ten-year agreement to provide strategic-military support for Ukraine.

By getting NATO’s ‘obedience’ out of the way, Trump’s America could try to create a bridge to the East via Germany and Italy, which are Russia’s historical ‘cousins’ and enjoy an excellent reputation, but also a lack of alternative, as both are full of American military bases.

Ah, let’s not forget one thing: the UK will not like this option. We must expect some surprises.

This move reshapes Europe. The plans discussed so far must now be reinterpreted with an exclusively stars and stripes key. Everything takes on a different role: the Three Seas Initiative changes size, Ukraine changes its weight on the scales, the Scandinavian Northern European countries change place in the equation, the Mediterranean will have to be colored with a different palette of colors, it will even become possible to dialogue with some partnerships or set up others, obviously convenient for the USA but still on European and Eurasian territory.

Let us not be fooled: less NATO but more U.S. is certainly not good news. American imperialism is simply evolving in a different direction from the one we are used to, but it could not be otherwise given the change of the world in a multipolar direction.

We will see what happens next. Year 2025 will open with some surprises, we hope nice one. Let us hold on tight.