Martin A. Smith
By the end of the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term in the White House, descriptions of systemic crisis in – or even predictions of the end of – the transatlantic security alliance were commonplace. And yet NATO had not only survived, but by January 2026 was taking on new roles and responsibilities – playing a more important role in facilitating continuing western (including US) military assistance to Ukraine, and potentially also with regard to Greenland, and perhaps wider Arctic security. It was certainly true that Trump’s brusque and unpredictable approach to international diplomacy led to some bruising encounters with allies and partners. These proved short-lived, however, and were managed short of inflicting serious or durable damage on the core NATO institution. The analysis here seeks to explain how and why.
The 1949 North Atlantic Treaty (NAT) places no automatic obligation on its signatories to offer military assistance to allies under attack. Article 5 merely requires each signatory to take “such action as it deems necessary”, leaving the door open in theory for them to take no enforcement action. Its content nevertheless suggested that signatories wanted something more solid and permanent than a traditional military alliance.
No comments:
Post a Comment