Trump's NATO Strategy Updated
Britain is in talks with European allies about deploying a military force to Greenland in an effort to dissuade Donald Trump from seizing the Arctic island.
Military chiefs are drawing up plans for a possible Nato mission that would involve troops, warships and aircraft protecting the strategically important territory from Russian and Chinese aggression.
British officials have held discussions with counterparts in Germany and France in recent days as preparations for the operation begin to take shape, The Telegraph reported.
The plans, which remain at an early stage, are aimed at persuading Mr Trump to drop his controversial plans to annex Greenland, a self-governed island that is part of Denmark.
European nations believe that significantly boosting their military presence in the Arctic would allow the US president to claim victory by arguing that America's allies were shouldering more of the financial burden.
As best I can figure this out, the European NATO countries, or maybe just the UK, France, and Germany, would deploy troops, warships, and aircraft to Greenland in order to reassure Trump that they would defend Greenland under existing NATO conditions, so that Trump wouldn't feel the need to annex Greenland to the US. His answer was implicit in the reply he gave to a reporter on Air Force One last night:
I like NATO. I just wonder whether or not if needed NATO would they be there for us? I'm not sure they would,' Trump said.
In other words, whatever force NATO could deploy in the Arctic independently of the US would be subject to possible hestation by NATO to stand up to any actual threat from Russia or China. Trump is clearly too much of a realist to accept any "reassurances" from NATO in that area. In fact, the "discussions" about NATO deployment to the Arctic must surely be aimed at suggesting to Trump that he would be fighting NATO if he chose military action in Greenland, which would end NATO.What would be the global strategic effect of ending the NATO alliance? This site gives a hint:
The US’ 16% share of Nato Common Funding is widely recognized to be leveraged into 100% of Nato’s integrated command and control/intelligence (C3I) capability (i.e., the US is the glue that holds Nato’s integrated C3I together). In short, without the US, Nato would lose its airborne warning and control systems, most if not all of its ability to carry out joint training and exercises, management of joint facilities and infrastructure, common communications capability and Nato’s multinational integrated military command structure. Moreover, Nato would lose almost all of its strategic intelligence collection capabilities and the majority of its battlefield surveillance capability. Critical intelligence integration capabilities would also be impacted, meaning that any post-US Nato force would, in effect, be fighting blind.
In other words, if Trump were to conduct a military operation against Greenland in opposition to NATO, NATO would lose its intelligence ability or battlefield surveillance, which would previously have been solely a US capability. NATO without the US would also be without the B-2 bombers and other advanced weapons that have been key to recent US military operations. In addition, NATO forces would need some sort of transport to fight in Greenland, as no NATO forces other than the US are currently stationed there. But according to the same link,
The critical aspect of the Nato alliance is Article 5, or the commitment to common defense. Key to executing this commitment is the ability to deploy sufficient combat power rapidly to meet any emergent threat. While all Nato members possess indigenous logistical support capability, there is only one Nato member that has sufficient logistical capacity in terms of airlift/sealift/combat sustainability to meet the expeditionary needs of any Article 5 commitment, and that is the US. Should the US withdraw its support from Nato, the alliance would find itself virtually paralyzed in terms of being able to mobilize and deploy sufficient forces necessary to meet a military challenge from Russia [or the US itself]. Moreover, given the degree to which many Nato members are reliant upon US equipment, the question of maintaining this equipment under combat conditions void of US logistical support becomes a real issue.
At the UK Daily Mail link above,
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew back to Washington, Trump was asked whether taking Greenland could damage relations with the alliance.
'If it affects NATO, then it affects NATO,' Trump said. 'But, you know, they need us much more than we need them, I will tell you that right now.'
So if NATO were to dissolve the alliance and resist a U S occupation of Greenland militarily, it wouldn't have US satellite intelligence to launch its missiles, and it wouldn't have US logistical support to move its forces to Greenland. Nor would it have B-2 bombers, electronic weapons, and apparently other advanced resources like the directed energy weapon that was reportedly used in Venezuela.One thing I've noticed in the current discussions is that Canada is nowhere to be found in any collective mooting about military alliances against the US. I suspect they would want to maintain as much distance as they possibly could from any such thing.
This takes me back to the business-school analysis of Trump's negotiating style that I keep referencing here: Trump studies the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents' negotiation options carefully, but he prefers to negotiate with opponents who have no options. As he just put it, NATO needs the US more than the US needs NATO.
