Can Nato Survive Without the US?

The EU last week convened an emergency meeting to discuss the future of European security in an environment where Europe is called upon to confront a threat from Russia without the support of the US. This scenario is predicated on the US reducing, limiting or withdrawing altogether its involvement in the Nato alliance. While the politically charged situation remains fluid, the fact is that Europe will be hard pressed to either continue the Nato alliance or replace it with a more focused European military alliance without the US providing significant political, financial and military capacity as a backstop.

The debate swirling around the future of Nato and the specific leadership role to be played by the US and Europe going forward usually hinges on the issue of money. Whether the US contributes 66% of the Nato budget (wrong), as claimed in widely viewed social media posts, or 16% (correct, and matched by Germany), according to Nato, or whether the ideal benchmark for the percentage of GDP member nations should be allocating to defense expenditures should be 2% or 5%, is really beside the point. The reality is that Nato has been, is and — if it is to survive as a viable military alliance — will always be overly reliant upon the US when it comes to its ability to project meaningful military power. While money does matter, most discussions that revolve around fiscal issues miss the most salient point — that Nato’s combat potential is defined by investments made over time as opposed to investments made in the here and now. And when one breaks down the various categories often used to define military power, it becomes clear that the US serves as the foundation for these metrics.

Command and Control/Intelligence

The US’ 16% share of Nato Common Funding is widely recognized to be leveraged into 100% of Nato’s integrated command and control/intelligence (C3I) capability (i.e., the US is the glue that holds Nato’s integrated C3I together). In short, without the US, Nato would lose its airborne warning and control systems, most if not all of its ability to carry out joint training and exercises, management of joint facilities and infrastructure, common communications capability and Nato’s multinational integrated military command structure. Moreover, Nato would lose almost all of its strategic intelligence collection capabilities and the majority of its battlefield surveillance capability. Critical intelligence integration capabilities would also be impacted, meaning that any post-US Nato force would, in effect, be fighting blind.

Logistics

The critical aspect of the Nato alliance is Article 5, or the commitment to common defense. Key to executing this commitment is the ability to deploy sufficient combat power rapidly to meet any emergent threat. While all Nato members possess indigenous logistical support capability, there is only one Nato member that has sufficient logistical capacity in terms of airlift/sealift/combat sustainability to meet the expeditionary needs of any Article 5 commitment, and that is the US. Should the US withdraw its support from Nato, the alliance would find itself virtually paralyzed in terms of being able to mobilize and deploy sufficient forces necessary to meet a military challenge from Russia. Moreover, given the degree to which many Nato members are reliant upon US equipment, the question of maintaining this equipment under combat conditions void of US logistical support becomes a real issue.

Air Power

A key component of Nato military power projection is through its air power. In the case of any potential conflict with Russia, this would especially be focused on deep-strike capabilities. As witnessed in the US’ recent restrictions on intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, certain non-US weapons systems, such as the British Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles, but also extending to the German-made Taurus missile, are unable to be employed without US-provided targeting data. Moreover, most of Nato’s deep-strike capabilities are carried out by the US Air Force, thus putting Nato at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to any conventional conflict with Russia. While Nato possesses many aircraft, many of these are US-manufactured, making sustainability a factor. Likewise, the US dominates air mission planning and command and control given its technical domination of Nato command structures. In short, without the US, Nato would not be able to initiate or sustain a large-scale aerial campaign of the likes needed to confront a Russian threat.

Conventional Military Power

The US is the only Nato member able to deploy, in expeditionary fashion, military formations of corps size (three divisions) or larger. US heavy armored brigades possess combat power unmatched by any equivalent Nato military formation. Moreover, the US possesses power projection capability in aircraft carrier battlegroups, amphibious task forces and expeditionary air wings that are unmatched by Nato as an organization or by any individual Nato member state. If these capabilities are removed or reduced, Nato loses any meaningful ability to project power outside of the territories of its members. This means Nato’s ability to reinforce its northern and southern flanks, or to project power into Ukraine, will be virtually nonexistent.

Anti-Air Defense/Ballistic Missile Defense

Nato possesses no viable integrated air defense system. To the extent one exists, it only does so when the US deploys its own air defense capabilities and integrates them using US command and control capabilities with those of other Nato member states. In the event of a major conflict against a peer-level force, Nato — void of full US-participation — would find itself vulnerable to aerial attack throughout its operational and strategic depth. The same holds true when it comes to anti-missile defenses — to the extent that Nato possesses any anti-ballistic missile capability, it is because of US resources alone.

Nuclear Deterrence

France has proposed that its “force de dissuasion,” or nuclear deterrence force, assume the mission of Europe’s nuclear umbrella, suggesting that French nuclear-armed aircraft could be deployed to Germany. This is a highly problematic move, since it would put France and Germany in the position of violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s prohibition on the proliferation of nuclear weapons specified in Articles 1 and 2. Moreover, while the French force de dissuasion has always served as a complement to the US-provided Nato nuclear deterrent, it cannot substitute for the nuclear power of the US. As such, a US retreat would leave France and Europe weakened given the fact that the assured destruction of both in the event of a nuclear conflict with Russia, without providing for the assured destruction of Russia in return, is the antithesis of deterrence. Lastly, if France were to assume responsibility for the European nuclear umbrella, then it assumes responsibility for the European nuclear disarmament portfolio when, given the unsustainability of French-backed nuclear deterrence, Europe could be compelled to engage in disarmament negotiations with Russia. By overreaching now, France risks sacrificing its force de dissuasion at the negotiating table, where it would be compelled to sit alone without the US to shield it as had been the case in past negotiations where the US nuclear umbrella was the focus of Russia’s attention.

While it is a mission impossible at this juncture to predict the future course of events as they relate to the US and Nato, it is safe to say that the relationship is going through a difficult transition that will require Europe to assume greater responsibility when it comes to both the funding and operations of the trans-Atlantic alliance. The reality is that the fiscal burden of replacing the US is far too great for Europe to bear fully, and that Europe is far too divided politically to provide the kind of singular focus on military matters that the US has provided for these past eight decades. Whatever Nato ends up looking like going forward, it will be far removed from the alliance that has defined and shaped Europe since the end of World War II.

https://www.energyintel.com/00000195-859f-df2c-a9f5-cddf935e0000