The US election and NATO: What’s at stake

Several developments in the U.S. presidential race, including former President Donald Trump’s pick of JD Vance as vice president earlier this month, have left European NATO member countries worried as they contemplate the possibility of the U.S. reducing its leadership role in the treaty organization — or pulling out altogether — analysts say.

American presidents from both parties have long criticized a lack of burden sharing within NATO, pointing to many countries not matching the 2% of GDP defense spending commitment. With the upcoming U.S. presidential election and Trump and Vance’s criticisms of the alliance, NATO’s future is effectively on the ballot , some foreign policy experts say.

Trump has frequently criticized NATO countries for placing a financial burden on the U.S., warning that if they do not increase their contributions, he might consider reducing America’s involvement in the alliance or withdrawing completely.

“NATO has to treat the U.S. fairly, because if it’s not for the United States, NATO literally doesn’t even exist,” Trump said in a March interview .

The U.S. spent 3.49% of its GDP on defense in 2023, while 19 of 32 NATO countries failed to reach the 2% commitment . This year, 23 out of 32 countries are expected to meet or exceed the defense-spending target, according to NATO.

Embracing Trump’s “America First” foreign policy platform, Trump and Vance favor isolationism. This raises the question: What does this mean for NATO member countries in need of American assistance, especially Ukraine and neighboring countries around Russia?

Even if Vice President Kamala Harris — the anticipated Democratic presidential nominee — wins the election in November, NATO may still face challenges.

A Trump and Vance ticket

Klaus Larres, a history professor at the University of North Carolina and a fellow at the Wilson Center, noted that not all campaign rhetoric translates into actions once in office.

Trump is more skeptical of NATO than President Joe Biden’s administration, but since more countries are meeting the defense spending commitment, that grievance may diminish, Larres said.

“He probably will not repeat again that he wants to leave NATO, but he probably will make the United States less active in NATO and less prominent and less being the clear leader of NATO,” he said.

Larres said Vance’s inexperience in foreign policy will require a steep learning curve, which could prompt him to reconsider his instinctive isolationism.

“He is an isolationist, and he wants to withdraw from Ukraine,” Larres said. “He doesn’t seem to see how detrimental that also would be for the United States and not just for the Europeans or for Ukraine, that it would have really devastating effects on America’s role in the world. He doesn’t seem to understand that.”

With 40% of global trade involving the U.S. and Europe, a serious strain in relations would harm America not only in security but also in trade and economic policy, Larres said.

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump and Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) appear on the first day of the Republican National Convention on July 15 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Harris is expected to be the Democratic presidential nominee, following Biden’s announcement that he won’t seek reelection. Harris, who as of this writing has not announced a vice presidential candidate, will face a formal nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August.

During his presidency, Biden expanded and defended NATO while bringing the Atlantic allies closer together, Larres said. Foreign policy experts expect Harris to continue support for NATO and Ukraine.

In contrast to the Republican ticket, Harris has indicated she would not stray from NATO.

“I firmly believe our commitment to build and sustain alliances has helped America become the most powerful and prosperous country in the world — alliances that have prevented wars, defended freedom and maintained stability from Europe to the Indo-Pacific,” Harris said at the Munich Security Conference in February.

“To put all of that at risk would be foolish,” Harris said.

In a February rally, Trump said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO country that doesn’t meet the defense spending commitment.

In response, Harris criticized Trump’s remarks and reaffirmed her opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine.

Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to supporters during a campaign rally at West Allis Central High School on July 23 in West Allis, Wisconsin. (Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

“No previous U.S. president, regardless of party, has bowed down to a Russian dictator before,” Harris said in an interview .

In the days leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Harris urged NATO countries to unite and prepare sanctions.

During her Munich speech, Harris warned against American isolationism, stating abandoning Ukraine or NATO allies would repeat historical mistakes.

“If we stand by while an aggressor invades its neighbor with impunity, they will keep going,” she said, noting Putin’s actions could threaten all of Europe.

“If we fail to impose severe consequences on Russia, other authoritarians across the globe would be emboldened, because you see, they will be watching — they are watching and drawing lessons.”

The ‘bedrock’ of NATO

Foreign policy experts warned diminishing America’s involvement in NATO could signal to adversaries abroad they can take advantage of U.S. allies, as America’s military strength is a key deterrent.

Elizabeth Saunders, a professor of political science at Columbia University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the U.S. military is the “bedrock” of NATO, and the U.S. nuclear program is still a key part of how NATO deters adversaries, like Russia.

“It’s very clear that this dance that NATO countries and Russia are doing on the sort of outer edges of this conflict are designed to prevent direct hostilities between any NATO country and Russia, and that’s why Ukraine rightly believes that its security is tied to whether or not because it can get into NATO,” Saunders said.

On his campaign website, Trump argued “we have to finish the process we began under my Administration of fundamentally reevaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission,” claiming Russia is not the greatest threat to the U.S.

“You don’t have to believe that Russia is the greatest threat to the U.S. to think that it is a threat to U.S. interests,” Saunders said.

Hans Binnendijk, a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and an adjunct political scientist at the RAND Corporation, said the most acute risk to the U.S. is Russia because the war in Ukraine has the potential for escalation.

“So, if the alliance is significantly weakened, [Putin] may feel that he can take advantage of that and he goes into the Baltic states, for example, which would be very dangerous,” Binnendijk said.

NATO heads of state and government gathered on the 75th anniversary of NATO's creation in Washington, D.C., on July 9. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Because NATO relies heavily on the U.S. for nuclear deterrence, undermining the alliance would weaken its effectiveness, Binnendijk said. As he sees it, the most immediate risk of a Trump and Vance win is Congress failing to agree on future aid for Ukraine. He noted delays in past aid bills have led to shortages of air defense and artillery munitions for Ukraine.

“If the U.S. just decides to stop aid to Ukraine, Europe can pick up some of it, but certainly not all of it, and it would probably force Ukraine into a very unfavorable situation where they might have to cut a really bad deal with Putin that would in turn do a lot of damage internally to the alliance,” he said.

Even if Trump doesn’t formally withdraw the U.S. from NATO, he could still reduce America’s involvement in ways that undermine the alliance and leave other member countries more vulnerable, Saunders said.

For example, Trump could refuse to appoint an ambassador to NATO or withdraw U.S. troops from allied countries, Saunders said.

“But if the fundamentals, if the material and the personnel and the capabilities that you need come from the U.S., then if you don’t have access to those, then you don’t really have NATO in its current form,” Saunders said. “You have something else that might still be called NATO.”

Cristina Stassis is a reporter covering stories surrounding the defense industry, national security, military/veteran affairs and more. She previously worked as an editorial fellow for Defense News in 2024 where she assisted the newsroom in breaking news across Sightline Media Group.

分析人士称，美国总统竞选中的几项进展，包括前总统唐纳德·特朗普本月早些时候选择JD Vance担任副总统，令欧洲北约成员国感到担忧，因为他们正在考虑美国是否有可能减少其在该条约组织中的领导作用，甚至完全退出。

美国两党总统长期以来都批评北约内部缺乏责任分担机制，指出许多国家未能达到占GDP 2%的国防开支承诺。一些外交政策专家表示，随着美国总统大选临近，以及特朗普和万斯对北约的批评，北约的未来实际上已岌岌可危。

特朗普经常批评北约国家给美国造成财政负担，并警告说，如果它们不增加贡献，他可能会考虑减少美国在北约的参与，甚至完全退出。

特朗普在3月份的一次采访中说：“北约必须公平对待美国，因为如果没有美国，北约根本就不存在。”

2023年，美国国防开支占GDP的3.49%，而北约32个成员国中有19个未能达到2%的国防开支目标。北约预计，今年32个成员国中有23个将达到或超过国防开支目标。

特朗普和万斯拥护特朗普的“美国优先”外交政策纲领，主张孤立主义。这就引出了一个问题：这对需要美国援助的北约成员国，特别是乌克兰和俄罗斯周边国家，意味着什么？

即使副总统卡马拉·哈里斯（民主党总统候选人的热门人选）在11月赢得大选，北约仍可能面临挑战。

特朗普和万斯的竞选

北卡罗来纳大学历史学教授、威尔逊中心研究员克劳斯·拉雷斯指出，并非所有竞选言论都能转化为就职后的行动。

拉雷斯表示，特朗普对北约的怀疑程度比拜登政府要高，但由于越来越多的国家履行了国防开支承诺，这种不满情绪可能会有所减弱。

他说：“他可能不会再重申他想退出北约，但他可能会让美国在北约的活跃度降低，影响力减弱，不再是北约的明确领导者。”

拉雷斯表示，万斯在外交政策方面缺乏经验，需要经历一个陡峭的学习曲线，这可能会促使他重新考虑他本能的孤立主义立场。

拉雷斯说：“他是个孤立主义者，他想从乌克兰撤军。他似乎没有意识到，这不仅对欧洲人和乌克兰有害，对美国自身也同样有害，会对美国在世界上的角色造成毁灭性打击。他似乎不明白这一点。”

拉雷斯表示，全球贸易中有 40% 涉及美国和欧洲，两国关系严重紧张不仅会损害美国的安全，还会损害美国的贸易和经济政策。

共和党总统候选人、前总统唐纳德·特朗普和共和党副总统候选人、俄亥俄州参议员JD·万斯于7月15日在威斯康星州密尔沃基市出席了共和党全国代表大会的首日活动。（图片来源：Win McNamee/Getty Images）

在拜登宣布不再寻求连任后，哈里斯预计将成为民主党总统候选人。截至发稿时，哈里斯尚未宣布副总统候选人，她将在8月举行的民主党全国代表大会上接受正式提名。

拉雷斯表示，拜登在任期间扩大并捍卫了北约，同时拉近了大西洋盟国之间的距离。外交政策专家预计，哈里斯将继续支持北约和乌克兰问题。

与共和党候选人不同，哈里斯已表示她不会背离北约。

哈里斯在2月份的慕尼黑安全会议上表示：“我坚信，我们致力于建立和维持联盟，这帮助美国成为世界上最强大、最繁荣的国家——这些联盟防止了战争，捍卫了自由，维护了从欧洲到印太地区的稳定。”

“把这一切都置于危险之中是愚蠢的，”哈里斯说。

在二月份的一次集会上，特朗普表示，他将鼓励俄罗斯对任何不履行国防开支承诺的北约国家“为所欲为”。

对此，哈里斯批评了特朗普的言论，并重申了她反对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京和乌克兰战争的立场。

7月23日，民主党总统候选人、副总统卡马拉·哈里斯在威斯康星州西艾利斯市西艾利斯中央高中举行的竞选集会上向支持者发表讲话。（图片来源：Jim Vondruska/Getty Images）

哈里斯在一次采访中说：“此前没有任何一位美国总统，无论属于哪个党派，向俄罗斯独裁者低头。”

在俄罗斯于 2022 年入侵乌克兰的前几天，哈里斯敦促北约国家团结起来，准备实施制裁。

哈里斯在慕尼黑演讲中警告美国不要采取孤立主义，称抛弃乌克兰或北约盟友将重蹈历史覆辙。

“如果我们袖手旁观，任由侵略者肆意入侵邻国，他们就会继续下去，”她说道，并指出普京的行为可能会威胁到整个欧洲。

“如果我们不给俄罗斯施加严厉的惩罚，世界各地的其他威权国家就会受到鼓舞，因为你看，他们会密切关注——他们正在观察并从中吸取教训。”

北约的“基石”

外交政策专家警告说，减少美国在北约的参与可能会向国外的对手发出信号，表明他们可以利用美国的盟友，因为美国的军事实力是一个重要的威慑力量。

哥伦比亚大学政治学教授、布鲁金斯学会非常驻高级研究员伊丽莎白·桑德斯表示，美国军队是北约的“基石”，美国的核计划仍然是北约威慑俄罗斯等对手的关键组成部分。

桑德斯说：“很明显，北约国家和俄罗斯在这场冲突的边缘地带进行的这种博弈，旨在防止任何北约国家与俄罗斯之间发生直接敌对行动，这就是为什么乌克兰有理由相信，它的安全与它能否加入北约息息相关。”

特朗普在其竞选网站上辩称，“我们必须完成在我执政期间启动的对北约宗旨和使命进行根本性重新评估的进程”，并声称俄罗斯并非美国面临的最大威胁。

桑德斯说：“你不必认为俄罗斯是美国面临的最大威胁，才能认为它对美国的利益构成威胁。”

大西洋理事会斯考克罗夫特战略与安全中心研究员、兰德公司兼职政治学家汉斯·宾内迪克表示，美国面临的最严重风险来自俄罗斯，因为乌克兰战争有可能升级。

“因此，如果联盟被严重削弱，（普京）可能会觉得他可以利用这一点，例如，他会入侵波罗的海国家，这将非常危险，”宾嫩迪克说。

7月9日，北约各国国家元首和政府首脑齐聚华盛顿特区，庆祝北约成立75周年。（美联社照片/埃文·武奇）

宾嫩迪克表示，由于北约严重依赖美国的核威慑，削弱北约将降低其效力。在他看来，特朗普和万斯若胜选，最直接的风险在于国会可能无法就未来对乌克兰的援助达成一致。他指出，过去援助法案的延误导致乌克兰防空和炮弹短缺。

他说：“如果美国决定停止对乌克兰的援助，欧洲可以接手一部分，但肯定不可能全部，这可能会迫使乌克兰陷入非常不利的境地，他们可能不得不与普京达成一项非常糟糕的协议，这反过来会对联盟内部造成很大的损害。”

桑德斯表示，即使特朗普没有正式宣布美国退出北约，他仍然可以通过一些方式减少美国的参与，从而破坏北约，并使其他成员国更加脆弱。

桑德斯说，例如，特朗普可能会拒绝任命驻北约大使，或者从盟国撤出美军。

桑德斯说：“但如果北约的基本要素，比如所需的物资、人员和能力都来自美国，那么如果你无法获得这些，那么北约就无法真正以现在的形式存在。你得到的可能只是另一种形式，或许仍然被称为北约。”

克里斯蒂娜·斯塔西斯是一位记者，主要报道国防工业、国家安全、军事/退伍军人事务等领域的新闻。她曾于2024年在《防务新闻》担任编辑助理，协助Sightline媒体集团旗下新闻编辑室处理突发新闻。