“France is certainly not alone in its political frustration with NATO nor is it singularly disruptive. Turkey is an equally disruptive member of the alliance, as is the US of course. But vigorous and at times acrimonious political debates are what make NATO work -- despite the discomfort it brings to the mandarins -- during internationally transformative moments like the one we are living through at present… What has always set NATO apart as an alliance has been its political dialogue. Unfortunately, the depth and quality of NATO's political dialogue has also been sacrificed at the altar of preserving NATO unity at all costs.”
Heather A. Conley, CNN

“Trump is right to push for greater financial commitment from NATO members, and he can rightly claim their increased defense spending as a foreign policy achievement. But he takes it a step too far when he mischaracterizes the expenditures as money for the United States… NATO has provided Europe decades of political and economic stability. The achievement comes at rock-bottom prices compared with cost of wars. Trifling with the alliance's core principle of collective defense only makes matters worse. If 20th century history teaches anything, it's that conflicts in Europe inevitably pull in the United States.”
Editorial Board, USA Today

“Trump’s most egregious mistake, though, was his failure to support clearly and unequivocally the key provision of the NATO treaty, Article V, which calls on member states to come to one another’s defense when attacked. He has had several opportunities to do so but has hedged each time. This is of major concern to allied leaders, who want NATO adversaries such as Vladimir Putin to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S. and its allies will defend Estonia or Latvia should Russian forces cross their borders…

“Article V has been invoked just once in NATO history, when the European allies and Canada vowed to come to our defense after the 9/11 attacks… Each ally went into Afghanistan with us. They and other partner nations have suffered more than 1,000 combat deaths there, with many more thousands wounded…

“Trump appears entirely indifferent to the clear, decisive advantage over Russia and China that the United States enjoys because of our European ties. We have 28 allies in NATO, as well as treaty allies in Japan, South Korea, and Australia in the western Pacific, who will defend us when our backs are against the wall. This is the great power differential we enjoy with Moscow and Beijing.”
Nicholas Burns, The Atlantic

“An important reason NATO has held together for 70 years is the common perception of the threat posed by the Soviet Union and, more recently, Russia. But core members of the alliance no longer agree on this. Turkey is buying arms from Moscow, including missile systems that endanger NATO defenses… Trump has been cozying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin at every opportunity, against the advice of his entire military and intelligence community. Macron is ambivalent at best. Nor is there consensus over the other threats to the West: terrorism, cyberwarfare, China… some NATO members see China more as a source of money than menace…

“Even if most member states were to agree on what constitutes a threat, it doesn’t automatically follow that NATO is the best shield. Cyberwarfare requires subtler, more secretive approaches than the alliance is capable of deploying, and counterterrorism calls for swift, supple responses — not the kind of thing you leave to a giant multinational bureaucracy. Taking on China may require a North Pacific Treaty Organization, in which European militaries would play only a small part. This doesn’t mean NATO is no longer relevant. It is relevant for the same reason it was at its founding: the potent threat of Moscow. Getting all the members to recognize this, and to act accordingly… will take political leadership of a high order from the most powerful members. Nothing said or done in London this week suggested such leadership is at hand.”
Bobby Ghosh, Bloomberg