February 13, 2024
I am honored that India’s premier English language international broadcaster WION sought my comments on the present scandal surrounding Donald Trump and non-fulfillment by the U.S. of Article 5 obligations to assist NATO member states in case of Russian attack. My interviewer was Shivan Chanana, Anchor and Producer at WION, who had probing questions of great value.
I tried to make plain in the interview that Trump is intent on the break-up of NATO for reasons that make sense to those of us who had the good fortune to listen a couple of years ago to the late Russian politician, founder and long-time chairman of the center-right LDPR party. Vladimir Zhirinovsky explained at the time why and how Russia, with a defense budget ten times smaller than the US, could pull ahead of the US in developing and deploying state of the art strategic nuclear weapons systems.
And since then, the standing of Russia’s conventional forces has also caught up with and moved ahead of the States. The ongoing war in Ukraine has demonstrated that Russia is the world’s biggest producer of artillery shells and is equipping its armed forces with the latest generation field weaponry, reconnaissance and strike drones, electronic warfare gear and much more. Whereas just a few years ago Russian military planners were certain they could not match NATO on the field of battle with conventional arms and would have to go nuclear should there be a hot war, today Russian generals are satisfied that their conventional forces are more than a match for NATO even with full U.S. participation. We see the proof daily in Ukraine.
Zhirinovsky told us the reason. With its vast network of overseas military bases built to ensure U.S. global hegemony, the U.S. military budget of 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars, as he said with a bit of humor, ‘goes to buy toilet paper’ for those bases and to fight hot wars in places that have no strategic value to the States instead of developing and fielding weapons systems to match its peers Russia and China.
One might look still further and remark on the corruption in the U.S. military procurement system from interaction with private for-profit manufacturers who lobby Congress on their own behalf using retired generals and Pentagon officials. But that source of reduced efficiency in spending is a topic for another day.
To the question of what relations between Russia and the United States will become if Trump wins the November elections, I had the opportunity to deliver an answer that I have mulled for some time. Despite his own words on the campaign trail in 2016 and despite the false accusations raised by Hilary Clinton of complicity between Trump and Putin ahead of the elections, once in the Oval Office Trump was no friend of Russia and the countries’ bilateral relations went from bad to worse. In this interview I argue that the greatest contribution to Russian-American relations is being made by Trump precisely now when he is acting as a private person to influence Congress to stop funding the war. Once in office, he will be subject to constraints imposed by those elites whom Putin mentioned in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson.
I will say no more in this introduction. I do hope that readers will open the link and hear the 12 minute interview
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Transcript below provided by a reader
Shivan Chanana: 0:00
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it’s a block of 31 members, mostly Western Nations. It’s essentially a security alliance, and if you attack one NATO member, you face the wrath of them all. Now former US President Donald Trump made remarks on NATO which have caused quite a stir. Trump in a recent speech said that he would encourage Russia to do whatever they wanted to NATO members who had not met their financial obligations. What are these financial obligations, and what’s the true cost of US protection under the NATO alliance? To talk more on this, to understand this better, we are being joined by Dr Gilbert Doctorow, who is an international affairs analyst, author and historian, joining us from Brussels. Very welcome to WION, sir. Wanted to get your understanding, what– get your thoughts on this. What are these financial obligations that Trump is referring to here?
Doctorow: 00:52
The obligation that he has in mind is a two-percent contribution, two percent of GDP contribution to defence by each of the member states. This was a big talking point, going back to the Obama years. But when Trump was in power, he was very aggressively making these demands, and it is now being raised again in his campaign speeches.
Chanana: 1:17
Doctor, I also wanted to understand– would you like to say something else?
Doctorow: 1:22
Yes, in addition to that, the reality is that because of the technical conditions of US-supplied weapon systems, particularly jets, the NATO member countries that are taking on US armaments, that is nearly all of them, are obliged to take on whole systems that effectively marginalize their own defence Industries.
Chanana: 1:51
Umhm. Just wanted to take this a little further: this two percent of the GDP that you just mentioned — and of course that is mentioned very much there for all the nations in the west who are part of this alliance — is it mandatory or is it voluntary for them to be paying this up to the US?
Doctorow: 2:09
Well, it’s not stated in the in the charter of NATO, but as a matter of policy over the years, the member states have been required to make such a contribution. In fact, at present day, all of the major West European members of NATO do not meet that level, aside from the UK. And those few states that meet the two percent requirement are huddled on the eastern border of NATO, that is to say, Baltic states, Finland and Poland. But the rest of Europe is under that limit, and there are good reasons for it.
Chanana: 2:51
When we talk about the Baltic states, of course they are facing Russia head-on. Do you feel that is probably one of the reasons why they don’t want to cut back on the two percent that is expected of them, to be spent on defence equipment which mostly comes from the US?
Doctorow: 3:07
The Baltic states all together have a population of perhaps three million people. When you look at them and say– and take them as a guide to what NATO [is] doing, we are really speaking about the tail wagging the dog. That they would be concerned about Russia, because they’re on the frontier, is obvious. But they should be more concerned, because of the way they have been flouting international law and EU standards in their treatment of their Russian-speaking minorities.
Chanana: 3:40
So when a nation becomes a part of NATO, Trump used the word, that they need to pay up to get US protection. Is this some kind of protection money, in a way, that is expected from all these nations, which Trump is kind of hinting at that he will be pressing down on this if he comes to power? And there’s a good chance he might just.
Doctorow: 4:03
I think we have to look beyond his words. The intent is to break up NATO. And because it is virtually impossible for the major powers in the west to reach the two percent target, given that they so de-industrialized and so marginalized their own defence industries, that the procurement is not workable to reach this kind of funding level. The intent of Trump is to break up NATO, for very good reasons. He is not a madman, and if we have a bit of time to discuss it this morning, it would be fine.
Chanana: 4:43
Mr Doctorow. I want to also understand from you, now if Trump comes to power this year, where do you see Russia-US ties heading? And will his presidency possibly bring a rift among NATO States if, as you mentioned, he’s wanting to bring a divide here and kind of break it up? Because it has been there since 1949. You really feel it can happen in Trump’s term if he comes to power this time?
Doctorow: 5:06
I think the– Mr Trump as a private citizen is doing more to end the war in Ukraine than Mr Trump as a future president could be able to do. By his political stance and rallying the Republicans to refuse to fund the war in Ukraine, he is accelerating the end of the war and saving lives on all sides, in a way that is very little appreciated by the media, and certainly not the broad public. This is not a madman. This a man who knows very well what he wants to do, and has in mind what he failed to do in his first presidency.
Chanana: 5:49
Doctor, you mentioned something very interesting here: that, you know, of course he does not want to continue with the wars there. Trump in as many words has mentioned that he needs just 24 hours to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict which has been going on. I wanted to just understand this from the Russian perspective as well. If Trump comes to power this year, where do you see Russia and US ties heading from here?
Doctorow: 6:12
Nowhere. Mr Trump during the presidency introduced severe sanctions, did confiscations of Russian assets and was no friend to Russia. He had a smiling mis– smiling summit with President Putin. They– he said things which alarmed the US press, because he did, he accepted Putin’s versions of the MH17 downing and so forth. But that was all just for public relations. The reality is that the US-Russian relations deteriorated very sharply under Trump. I wouldn’t wait to see his new presidency.
What he’s doing right now is more important than anything that he could do once he comes to the Oval Office. He is stopping the war, not because he has an agreement, a handshake with Putin, but because of what he’s doing to prevent further funding. And, as I say, this is not arbitrary. The breakup of NATO is not an arbitrary. It has to do with the whole concept of the US defence. US defence now is based on hundreds of military bases around the world and engagement which– engagement in armed conflict in many regions where the United States does not have a national interest.
7:37
If that means that the vast majority of US funding for defence goes to buying toilet paper for military bases around the world — as Mr Zhirinovsky, a Russian politician, once said with humor but with reality — and it is going to hot wars. It is not going to building US defence capability in terms of new… arms systems that would be on a level with what the Russians have now developed. So there is a logic to this all.
Chanana: 8:07
I want to come back to the two things that you mentioned. One is the breakup of NATO. And before that, I just want to also get your thoughts again on this: that Mr Trump is able to do more for the situation as of now as a citizen then he will be able to in case he becomes president again. Can you elaborate a little more on that?
Doctorow: 8:25
I think that– I’d like to make a reference to the famous Tucker Carlson interview with Putin a few days ago, in which Mr Putin said that it’s not the personalities of the person who sits in the Oval Office that counts. It’s what the elites think and are doing. Right now, Mr Trump is not hemmed in by elites. He is his own man, and therefore he is speaking and acting in a much freer way than he will be able to do if he comes to the the Oval Office again.
Chanana: 9:02
And when we talk about NATO, or rather the breakup of it as you mentioned, if Trump comes back, do you feel the breakup of NATO is imminent within his system?
Doctorow: 9:13
Well, nothing– you don’t sink a ship the size of NATO in one day, but it will be on a downward slope towards extinction. The United States Congress has passed legislation disallowing a president to break up NATO, but effectively, Mr Trump can make NATO unworkable. And I think that would be his aim: to withdraw American support and to redirect the funds for defence to where they can really help the United States equal its peers, Russia and China, in terms of new weapon development and implementation.
Chanana: 10:00
So if it was to distance itself from the NATO alliance– or do you feel NATO cannot survive without the US presence? Do you feel NATO can still survive if US is no longer there?
Doctorow: 10:12
No, NATO can’t survive without US presence. That is a given. Major broadcasters this morning have already put on air the conclusion that it will take 10 years for Europe to become self-standing in defence. The whole defence industry in Europe has been so wound down since 1991 that it is, that the countries here are unable to put together a force that has any weight to it without US participation.
Chanana: 10:51
Dr Doctorow, if NATO is dismantled, do you feel European– the defence industry in several European nations, that’ll also flourish and the US will also gain advantage from it? And if yes, then why? If you can elaborate on that.
Doctorow: 11:07
The defence industry will have to be revived in Europe from its rather pitiful state today, over a period of years, as let’s say, 10 years. That can happen. Why not? This– but the most important thing will be the political re-engagement with Russia. The– staring Russia in the face and being disarmed, as Europe is today, and not having confidence in US support, Europe will necessarily have to find some accommodation with Russia, in which case the importance of NATO itself will decline in a precipitous way. NATO has been revived — after going through several different reinventions of its purpose — it has been revived as an anti-Russian block. If Europe faces the fact that it cannot stand up to Russia and it has to find some accommodation, then the logic of NATO will dissolve.
Chanana: 12:06
That was Dr Gilbert Doctorow, International Affairs analyst, author and historian, joining us from Brussels. Always a pleasure hearing from you, sir. Some very, very important remarks that you’ve made here, and of course we’ll get to know how this all plays out as far as NATO is concerned if Trump comes to power. And there’s a good chance he might just. Thank you so much for joining in.
Emma Olive 