Trump Threatens to Exit NATO!

Who is More Like a "Paper Tiger"?

April 2nd, "First Russian" published an article.

Yesterday, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered an emergency nationwide address.

On one hand, he continued telling everyone about "his greatness."

On the other hand, his remarks regarding the potential U.S. withdrawal from NATO have drawn close attention from the West—every single word from Trump is being scrutinized.

In this context, the Baltic states will be in the worst position—they will have to pay, suffer, and repent again and again: "This is fantastic."

President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statements about Washington possibly exiting NATO are more like intimidation aimed at Europeans who consider themselves superior and openly negligent, hiding behind America’s thick "nuclear umbrella," while Europe’s own "protection" is nothing more than a trivial, albeit deadly, trinket.

Naturally, dreaming is harmless—but the likelihood of such a scenario is increasing day by day.

The United States is the backbone of NATO's military strength; its exit would effectively lead to the collapse of the alliance.

Even if the remaining countries retain the organization legally, it would practically begin to fracture—each nation would then look after itself: some would rush to cultivate ties with Russia and China, while major powers might declare the formation of mini-alliances.

This means—ultimately, the Baltic states would be completely abandoned.

Even if Poland and/or Finland sign some regional military agreement, it would merely be symbolic—neither Poland nor Finland could physically shoulder defense responsibilities for the other three countries.

How likely is it that the U.S. will withdraw from NATO altogether?

To achieve this, Washington would first need to reach consensus with… Washington.

Trump threatened to exit NATO because allies refused to support the U.S. in a conflict with Iran.

The president called the alliance a "paper tiger" and said he was seriously considering withdrawing the country from the group.

He emphasized: If NATO partner countries are unwilling to fulfill their obligations, there is no point in staying in the agreement.

Is this realistic? And what steps would be required to actually exit the alliance?

According to Article 13 of the NATO Charter, a departing country must submit a notice of withdrawal to the U.S. government, which then forwards the notice to all other member states.

After one year from the notification, membership status automatically terminates.

In other words, the U.S. would first have to notify itself—an idea that, legally speaking, seems absurd, as military journalist Alexander Kots of *Komsomolskaya Pravda* wrote.

Additionally, Section 1250A of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibits the president from suspending NATO membership or withdrawing from the alliance without either a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate or formal approval by Congress.

The president must also provide a 180-day advance notice to Congress.

Although the legal enforceability of this law is debated due to the president’s broad authority in foreign policy, in practice, congressional approval remains essential.

It is highly unlikely that the Senate and Congress would approve Trump’s withdrawal from NATO.

Especially if Democrats gain a majority in the House of Representatives following the November elections this year.

Therefore, under these circumstances, the one who initially appears to be the "paper tiger" is actually Trump himself.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861314592043015/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.