Will NATO survive another Trump presidency?

“Will the NATO Alliance Survive a Second Term of Donald Trump?” This is the question with which the century-old magazine Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, the most prestigious think tank in the world, received NATO’s 75th anniversary summit in Washington. More than 40 experts replied, and most of them were confident in the future of the alliance, at least in the persistence of its acronyms and structures, although not so much in the commitment of the United States, which has proven fundamental throughout the three quarters of a century of its history; experts also harbored serious reservations should Donald Trump regain the White House on November 5.

This is the central question occupying the minds of those summoned to the capital of the United States for the summit, although other explicit concerns are being expressed in statements and speeches. The greatest role belongs to Ukraine, whose candidacy for NATO accession constitutes the formal reason given by Vladimir Putin to attack it. The summit wants to give Zelenskiy everything in its power to dissuade Russia from continuing to bomb Ukrainian territory, especially hospitals and civilian infrastructure. Ukraine should deserve treatment from its allies at least similar to that which Israel receives with the Iron Dome, which makes it practically invulnerable to air attacks, as witnessed with the massive attack by Iranian missiles on April 13.

The Alliance will send a permanent representative to Kyiv and set up a military command in Germany, a first step in the direction demanded by Emmanuel Macron to consider eventually sending military instructors. It has also enabled a huge financial aid package to constitute a mechanism designed to be Trump-proof, that is, one that is irreversible even if Trump returns to office, and a set of bilateral defense agreements with a great number of Atlantic partners. It is about bringing Ukraine closer to the coverage of NATO’s Article 5 in the event of an external attack, without full integration having occurred or the mutual defense guarantee being activated. It is the essential strategic ambiguity to deter the enemy, making it uncertain about the response that its attacks may provoke.

It is not only Ukraine that is expecting results from Washington. So is Joe Biden, even as his own position as Democratic presumptive presidential candidate comes under scrutiny due to his expressive and cognitive difficulties. He may emerge from the summit still in the running, or else completely ruled out. The Foreign Affairs survey shows that many experts have begun to adapt to the idea of Trump as the next leader of the Alliance and that NATO will still endure, just as it has endured so many crises throughout its history.

Few of those surveyed mentioned the greater danger looming over NATO. It is not the withdrawal of the United States or the distribution of defense expenses, but the erosion of the credibility of Article 5 of the Treaty, a subtle deterrence mechanism based on the military and nuclear power of the main partner of the Alliance. Trump has already shown signs of his ability to render it useless and thereby erode the value of the Alliance, devalue Ukraine’s membership request and consequently grant victory to Putin. If such a thing were to happen, the future of the Alliance, and especially of the mutual defense mechanism, would remain in the hands of the Europeans, and especially France and the United Kingdom, the two largest military powers in Europe and the only ones in the Alliance that can deploy a nuclear shield. NATO will survive, but it will be difficult to recognize it with Trump in the White House and a politically absent (if not absent altogether) United States whose democracy is waning.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition