【Military Second Dimension】 Author: Fengyu

The official legislative information platform of the U.S. Congress released information on December 10 that a bill requiring the United States to withdraw from NATO has been officially submitted to the House of Representatives for review.

This document, numbered HR6508, was proposed by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, with the title: "Require the President to issue a notice to terminate the North Atlantic Treaty in order for the United States to withdraw." In the text, he explicitly included the provisions for initiating the withdrawal process and requested the President to send an official notice to the NATO headquarters in accordance with Article 13 of the NATO treaty.

Trump has always expressed dissatisfaction with NATO, believing that Europe is taking advantage of the United States, and has even hinted at leaving NATO. This time, starting the procedure indicates that he is serious about it?

At present, this proposal has not yet become a law. Even if it passes the House of Representatives, it still needs to be voted on by the Senate and finally signed by Trump. According to the current atmosphere, this proposal is likely to have only symbolic significance, similar to a proposal submitted by a member of Congress to impeach Trump, which is almost impossible to pass.

However, over the past few decades, although the U.S. political circle has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with European allies, it is rare to formally propose a bill to withdraw from NATO. Therefore, this bill still has symbolic significance, marking a substantive shift in the U.S. foreign policy direction. Especially after the release of the new strategic document, immediately following such a bill clearly indicates that it is in line with the new strategic adjustment.

(Screenshot of the official legislative information platform of the U.S. Congress)

Massie's core argument is that NATO has deviated from its original purpose, and maintaining this organization no longer serves American interests.

He believes that NATO was established during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union, but now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, NATO continues to expand and pushes the United States into intense confrontation with Russia on multiple issues.

European countries have economic scales sufficient to support their own defense, yet they have long relied on the United States to bear the responsibility of security. This structure is no longer fair to the United States. Therefore, he believes that the resources of American taxpayers should be prioritized for domestic use rather than being used to fill the military funding gaps of wealthy European countries.

Massie also cited the warnings of the American founders, claiming that the U.S. Constitution does not support the country's long-term involvement in complex overseas affairs. The U.S. society and finances can no longer afford to support the global security system. The U.S. should not be responsible for the continued military actions of NATO, nor should it bear the dangers for its allies.

(Trump)

These arguments are not new and indeed align with Trump's current comprehensive withdrawal strategy. Trump has long criticized European countries for refusing to bear sufficient military costs, and now he believes the U.S. should not act as the "world police." He thinks the U.S. money and soldiers should be used to protect the U.S. homeland, not sent to distant regions to maintain so-called peace.

Trump's team also encourages the isolationist tendencies within the Republican Party, portraying the reduction of overseas responsibilities as a choice beneficial to the U.S. Many American voters are tired of long-term deployments, Middle East wars, and the Ukraine conflict, and they want to reduce overseas consumption and allocate resources domestically.

Therefore, the concept of withdrawing from NATO has gradually transformed from a symbolic statement into an operable issue. Trump supporters believe that NATO imposes too many responsibilities on the U.S., while European countries often differ from the U.S. on key issues, leading the U.S. to not only incur costs but also fail to obtain expected political or economic returns from NATO.

So why is the U.S. still in NATO? To listen to the lectures of European politicians?

(U.S. flag and NATO logo)

Such statements used to appear only in some public opinion, but now they are written into formal legislation, indicating that the ideological environment within the U.S. politics is beginning to change. If symbolic actions continue to accumulate, they may eventually become political reality. Especially in Trump's system, many major decisions are gradually formed from trial-and-error initiatives.

Once there are more systematic and structured voices for withdrawal within Congress, even if it cannot be immediately promoted, it will cause anxiety among Europeans. Because for Europe, this uncertainty is more fatal than the exit itself.

The greatest reliance of an ally is not the treaty, but credibility. Once the U.S. can no longer provide credibility, the situation becomes very delicate, as from the European perspective, any indication from the U.S. that it is not protecting Europe would be a great encouragement to Russia.

(EU and U.S.)

European politicians often say that transatlantic relations are unbreakable, but according to the new U.S. strategic perception, transatlantic relations have shifted from a father-son relationship to a master-servant relationship.

A father-son relationship means that the U.S. needs to be responsible for Europe, while a master-servant relationship means that the U.S. will continue to exploit Europe but will not provide the same protection as before. And this cannot be reversed by just one person like Rutte calling Trump "father" on behalf of NATO.

This illustrates two main issues.

Firstly, the U.S. power has been greatly weakened, to the point where it is choosing to abandon parts of its Western sphere of influence, otherwise there would not be enough resources to stop the U.S. from declining.

Secondly, relying on others is not as good as relying on oneself. For Europe, the fundamental problem is not Trump, but the decline of the U.S., which lacks the resources to meet Europe's imagined protection.

If the U.S. were simply because Trump doesn't like Europe and abandons it, Europe wouldn't be too worried. They could wait for a president who values alliance relationships to return. However, when the U.S. is no longer capable, whether the U.S. is willing to protect Europe is no longer the main issue.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7582465569107034651/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.