Eve, here. Despite Trump’s characteristic radical unpredictability, in some respects he is rock-solid. The latest eyebrow-raising actions against NATO members are yet another “stick-no-carrot” move. Furthermore, the contradiction that NATO’s European member states are supposed to be responsible for the defense of Europe, but are still subordinate to the United States when it comes to Iranian demands, cannot be recognized.
Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the new Cold War. He holds a doctorate from MGIMO, which is affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Originally published on his website
This may be the United States’ last warning before taking drastic action to punish those who continue to refuse President Trump’s demands.
Undersecretary of the Army for Policy Elbridge Colby delivered an important speech to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in mid-April, in which he appealed to European countries to strengthen the transition to what he called “NATO 3.0” earlier this year. As explained here, “the idea is that NATO should return to focusing on its own defense rather than overextension in the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, Eastern Europe, and other regions,” and the hyperlinked analysis above explains how NATO aligns with Trump 2.0 policies.
Returning to Mr. Kolby’s speech, he called for “Europe to accelerate its assumption of primary responsibility for the continent’s conventional defense,” including providing weapons to Ukraine through the Priority Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) program, in which the United States plays the most important role. To that end, “the need to quickly rebuild Europe’s ammunition stocks is paramount, as is the need to remove protectionist trade barriers that stifle the continent’s industrial potential.”
He added: “The development of a robust, capable and integrated European defense industrial base is not just an aspiration, but an absolute prerequisite for reliable deterrence and defence.” Knowing how attached they were to Ukraine, Colby said, “This is critical to achieving an end to the war in Ukraine on terms that support a lasting peace.” He also called on them to take further “actions and fundamental changes in attitude” to “accelerate the transition to NATO 3.0.”
Colby concluded: “If Europe rises to this moment, truly embraces the primary responsibility of continental defense, in line with our vision of a balanced NATO 3.0, we will all emerge stronger and more confident in defending our people and national interests.” He also ominously warned them in the middle of his speech: [NATO stepping up to help secure the Strait of Hormuz per Trump’s expectation] For our future relationship. ”
As assessed here last month and tacitly reaffirmed by Mr. Colby, if the United States rejects President Trump’s demands by ending significant PURL contributions before they are replaced by NATO, it could accelerate a planned shift in military priorities from Europe to the Americas and the Indo-Pacific. That would facilitate a complete Russian victory in Ukraine, or at least frighten Europeans into doing what Russia wants with the fear that this is inevitable unless Russia takes immediate action once again to disarm itself.
If some members of the bloc refuse to contribute, and others refuse to contribute, President Trump could impose the pay-to-play model he is said to be considering, described here, which would exclude “dissidents” from the decision-making process and withdraw U.S. support for Article 5 from them. These penalties could also be imposed for refusing to spend 5% of GDP on defence. It is very likely that Colby communicated these disciplinary plans to onlookers at the event, even if he only hinted at it.
His call to step up the transition to his brainchild, NATO 3.0, can therefore be seen as the United States’ last warning before taking drastic action to punish those who continue to reject Trump’s demands. Imposing a pay-to-play model is one way to do that, and cutting off arms to Ukraine again could be another. Both may occur at the same time. It is unclear how NATO as a whole, let alone individual member states, will respond, but it is clear that President Trump is running out of patience with NATO.
