If, as is desirable, Joe Biden’s renunciation of the electoral competition is integrated with his early resignation as President, an objectively difficult decision on a human level, but which would give him a future historical recognition as a great statesman, NATO will certainly be among the greatest beneficiaries of this double change.
During the meeting celebrating NATO’s 75th anniversary, the central theme – even if unofficial – has been the concrete hypothesis of a radical change in the increasingly concrete hypothesis of a replacement of the US presidency from Biden to Donald Trump. That this change is increasingly certain is shown by the polls and also by the pro-election funding, which is increasingly unbalanced in favor of Trump. Obviously, NATO is directly involved in assessing the impacts of this presidential change.
Three things have been known about Trump’s relationship with NATO for some time.
1. NATO must review American funding and become more of a true North Atlantic alliance in terms of costs. Therefore greater burden of expenditure by European countries. A hypothesis that is difficult to criticize.
2. America will also reduce its extreme military war commitment to situations more limited to American territorial interests. In short, the country of Georgia is not Massachusetts. And here the matter is more complex
3. But there is no doubt that the Ukraine-Russia conflict will be immediately ended because it does not correspond to vital American interests and even less for NATO security benefits.
The hypothesis of a change in the American presidency is so concrete that the heads of European security met on the sidelines (but not too much on the sidelines) of the NATO meeting with more qualified security advisers of Trump to discuss those points.
Of course, none of the allies declares that they are worried about NATO change in the event of Trump being elected, but diplomacy exists to deny the evidence, except to make the consequences suffer in an exaggerated way. The concerns exist and are radical. And it is precisely for this reason that a change of US presidency at this electoral stage with the appointment of Kamala Harris as president for the next three months is extremely desirable on the NATO side.
The reasons? First of all, there are what can be called diplomatic subset reasons: the three previously indicated.
On point 1 it is reasonably certain that Trump’s financial approach to NATO spending will be more radical on the involvement of alliance partners. Countries will have to adjust to the minimum 2% GDP, a percentage that will also be revised upwards. Which is basically correct.
On point 2 it is hypothetically possible to believe that with Trump there will also be a revision of the philosophy of military intervention. And here only time will tell whether, how and when this philosophy will actually be modified. Very cautious steps will certainly be required.
But of the three “subset” points mentioned, the real certainty of immediate change is the third: the war in Ukraine will be suspended – finally for an ever-increasing number of Americans, but finally not only for them, finally for Europeans, for neighboring countries and especially for Ukraine itself. It is obvius that this change will produce significant political shocks among those who have supported it drastically. The President of the Commission, the Italian PM, and other politicians. Rebuilding this country will become the real peace mission in clear opposition to the nature of the NATO-Ukraine relationship sustained up to now. Trump’s radical change is certain, but it is precisely here that the change of US presidency for the next three months would bring the greatest possible benefits to NATO regardless of the November election result.
There is no doubt that for a growing number of political opinions, NATO has embarked on an adventure of support for the Ukrainian war that has produced dubious benefits and dangerous results. By identifying Russia as the central enemy in the heart of Europe, radically estranged from everything that a different diplomacy would have avoided, according to most political scholars it is evident that a substantially wrong policy has been implemented which, accompanied by the additions to NATO of historically neutral countries, has pushed Russia to forge stronger alliances with China, North Korea, Iran and now, possibly, with India. All abundantly obvious. All extremely dangerous for world peace.
That Russia feels increasingly surrounded is a fact. That this does not cheer her up, it is natural. That this NATO philosophy will be accepted and supported by the Trump administration is to be excluded. But this change is necessary in spite of the constant attempt to accredit a special personal relationship Trump Putin demonized by alleged Russian infiltration in the US electoral processes – Reagan and Gorbachev had a special personal relationship and it is difficult to believe that, as one wants to judge the Russian elections, the Americans do not fail to influence them. But it is a fact that the Reagan-Gorbachev special relationship led to the first nuclear arms reduction agreement, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the democratization of political systems in many countries of the former communist bloc. Those special relations not only fostered the atmosphere of peace that has been in place for a couple of decades, but paved the way for a different Russian involvement in that peace process. A positive fact for planetary security. Now, regardless of various demonizations, a similar general positive relationship is to be expected from a better Trump Putin relationship. And here a historical reference deserves to be remembered.
In the post-Reagan-Gorbachev era, NATO military expansion was condemned by Russia on the basis of oral promises, which probably there were, by the then US Secretary of State, not to expand it closer to the Russian borders. But it is difficult to share Russian criticism on the subject. It is useless in diplomacy to give credence to oral promises for the simple reason that since the written ones are often violated, it makes no sense to recall the oral ones. It is also understandable that since the subject of NATO enlargement is so important, the fact that it has not been put in writing means that there was no possibility of including it in an operational treaty since then. It is easier to believe that Gorbciov knew that the NATO alliance would expand but was unable to get it written that this would not happen. So this Russian protest actually has no weight. NATO is right not to take this into account. A different weight is instead the diplomatic military merit of a manifest NATO aggressiveness that has pushed the Russian security policy to embrace China, North Korea, Iran and perhaps India. Is it a real NATO or American interest to create two East-West blocs in total competition with each other? What impact will there be on economic growth and global health security?
That this radical conflict East against West is useful for world peace is doubtful that it is harmful to the economy is certain, that it is very dangerous to health security is dramatically true. In these terms, it is evident that Trump’s vision is victorious.
And it is here that NATO’s interest is expressed in a considerable benefit for immediate presidential replacement regardless of the November election outcome. It makes no sense for NATO to defend an integral vision of Biden that America no longer shares and there is no doubt that Biden will keep his NATO military philosophy integral until the last day of his mandate- But this, in the increasingly likely victory of Trump, will make the NATO change harder.
And so, regardless of the final election outcome, it is certainly more in NATO’s interest to have a reasonable moderate transition ensured by an intermediate presidential step by Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris as president now is therefore, regardless of the November election result, is in NATO’s interest to arrive at the 76th anniversary in conditions of greater functionality.