Why NATO Can’t Rely on the United States to Stop a Russian Invasion

Here’s a sanitized version of the provided YouTube transcript, with sensitive content and explicit language removed or modified for appropriateness:

—

Let’s say Russia wins the war in Ukraine. But rather than sit back and enjoy the victor’s spoils, Vladimir Putin begins to systematically attack NATO targets across Europe and the rest of the globe. Worse still, NATO receives no support from its biggest and most powerful ally: the United States.

A nightmare scenario or a terrifying reality? According to a report by Intellinews, citing the German newspaper Bild, such an attack could come as quickly as February or July of this year. And even though Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was quick to refute such claims, stating, “Recently this newspaper has regularly stooped to publishing various fake news items and canards,” many leading political commentators predict that Russia will attack NATO’s eastern flank – sooner rather than later.

If accurate, this unprecedented show of aggression would herald a huge armed battle in Europe and likely precipitate World War Three. However, any invasion wouldn’t be confined to just military action. Russia would commence hostilities with cyberattacks and hybrid modern warfare techniques, primarily in the Baltic states, before launching an assault on Poland’s eastern borders.

To understand how these predictions have gone from mere scaremongering to genuine concern, we have to rewind to the period immediately preceding Russia’s attack on Ukraine. We’re talking about Putin’s repeated warnings to the West regarding NATO expansion into Central and Eastern Europe, and ultimately, a new NATO base in Poland.

Let us not forget the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, which ostensibly prohibited the U.S. from having permanent bases in the region. In a report from the New York Times, the case for invasion of Ukraine was outlined by Russia as follows: “It is a fact that over the past 30 years, we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns.”

Has Putin got a legitimate reason to feel aggrieved, and is Russia’s current stance somewhat justified? Not according to the U.S. They feel that Putin effectively nullified the act with his annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent invasion of Ukraine eight years later.

To counter Russian aggression in Europe, U.S. President Joe Biden has endorsed any such measures. “In a moment where Putin has shattered peace in Europe and attacked the very tenets of the rule-based order, the United States and our allies are stepping up.” He feels the U.S. is “in the midst of a fight between democracies and oligarchs.”

The figures speak for themselves. There are now around 100,000 U.S. troops temporarily deployed in Central and Eastern Europe. And while that might appear to be a small number compared to the 370,000 troops that were deployed in Europe in the late 1980s before the fall of the Berlin Wall, it still constitutes a significant force – one that has irked Moscow for years.

But if that is the case, and the U.S. is keen to further expand its military presence in Europe, why can’t NATO rely on the superpower’s support? Especially if Putin does the unthinkable and attacks their bases in the Baltic states and Poland. That question has many complex, multifaceted answers. But perhaps the biggest and most relevant of those imponderables is the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Despite a slew of increasingly complex legal problems in the U.S., it now looks likely that controversial former president Donald Trump will secure the Republican nomination and take on Biden in the November election. If the current polls are to be believed, Trump holds a slim but perhaps significant advantage over Biden, at least as of the making of this video. Should those predictions prove correct, and Trump be reelected, what would his stance be towards NATO and involvement in any military conflict with Vladimir Putin – a leader he has previously expressed admiration toward?

Paul Quirk, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia in Canada, summed up the nature of their relationships in the following terms for Newsweek magazine: “(Trump) as president was extraordinarily responsive to Putin and Russia and hostile toward NATO. … NATO’s vital importance for American interests makes Trump look bad.”

So, it’s no secret that Trump had a strained relationship with NATO during his presidency and is open to cooperating with the Kremlin. In an article featured in The Atlantic from 2024, he was quoted as saying, “I don’t care about NATO…” and “…their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.”

Former national security adviser John Bolton puts Trump’s stance towards NATO and the U.S.’s historical allies in the following terms: “The damage he did in his first term was reparable. The damage in the second term would be irreparable.”

So, a Trump reelection could well be the reason why alarm bells are ringing across Europe, and especially within NATO. But how likely is a Trump victory? Again, that is a hard question to answer. For anyone looking from the outside in, the former president and billionaire businessman’s position looks tenuous, to say the least.

In another report from The Atlantic, it’s reported that Trump currently faces numerous felony counts across two state courts and two different federal districts, any of which could potentially result in a prison term. These charges are serious and range from fraud to election subversion. Some states and lawsuits could see him disqualified from running for president altogether.

Despite all the lawsuits, Trump remains popular with some sections of the American electorate. You need only look at his recent victories in the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. Whatever his harshest critics might think, it’s unlikely that any other figure in political history would’ve been able to survive the fallout from such claims and still be considered a viable presidential candidate by a huge swathe of the population.

All of which makes him an exceedingly dangerous and hugely unpredictable proposition, not just for NATO, but the wider world. But perhaps all is not lost – even if Trump is reelected. Remember, any decision to leave NATO would have to go through the U.S. Senate. And that would be a difficult, if not almost impossible motion for the new Trump administration to push through, and could even lead to a constitutional crisis.

Election intrigue aside, what of America’s obligations to the global community, its international partners, and close allies since the signing of various post-Second World War treaties? That’s where we come to one big stumbling block and a huge deterrent to any large-scale Russian military action in Europe: Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty constitutes the very basis of the alliance of nations.

The North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s founding treaty signed in 1949, sought to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the threat the Soviet Union might pose if it tried to extend its control over Eastern Europe. Every NATO nation made Article 5 – a pact of collective defense – a key component of the Alliance itself.

The crux of the treaty can be neatly summarized as follows: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked…”

Thus, the U.S. is legally obliged to rush to the defense of any country targeted by Russian aggression. Right? Not if Trump and his political supporters get their way and effectively leave NATO. But is that even possible? In a word, yes. Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty states: “After the Treaty has been in force for 20 years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation.”

More worrying, many voices of opposition have been making a case for America deserting the union. In a Newsweek report from July of 2023, Republican Representative from Georgia Marjorie Taylor Greene called NATO “Not a reliable partner” and claimed that other members are not paying their “fair share.”

In an election year, when many Americans have seen their living standards hit by various conflicts around the world, the desertion of an organization that is seen as a drain on American resources could be exceedingly popular. Put simply, the economy is a hugely important factor to the majority of Americans. The question that remains is whether or not economic prosperity on a domestic level in the U.S. can come at the cost of global security, and whether or not the two are inextricably linked.

The nightmare scenario for the long-term security of Europe and beyond was succinctly summed up by Thomas Gift, founding director of the Centre on U.S. Politics at University College London. “It’s not out of the question,” he said, “that a future administration – namely, a Trump one – would take an anti-globalist agenda to the point of pulling the plug on the alliance.”

Biden, for his part, is trying to paint a rosier picture. After securing one of the biggest election victories in U.S. history when he defeated Trump back in 2020, he told a recent summit in Lithuania that the U.S. has an “ironclad commitment” to NATO. “Today, our alliance remains a bulwark of global security and stability as it’s been for more than seven decades… NATO is stronger, more energized, and yes, more united than ever in its history.”

However, many would argue that this simply isn’t true. And if Biden isn’t reelected, a radical shift in policy could bring the curtain down on 70 years of cooperation and leave the door open for Putin to attack NATO bases in Eastern and Central Europe.

If that potentially devastating possibility became a reality, what sort of resistance would he face on the ground? For starters, one of the biggest, most modern, and well-equipped armies in the world: Poland. In recent history, the Poles found themselves helplessly sandwiched between two of the most powerful warring nations on the continent – Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Naturally, in the relatively peaceful post-Cold War years, Poland has systematically transformed itself into a military power in its own right.

The country has taken steps to never again find itself helpless and open to invasion and occupation. But would Poland be able to withstand a full-blown Russian attack, especially when the U.S. might well refuse to become involved in any conflict? Let’s look at some facts and figures.

According to a Euronews report from 2023, Poland has big plans in regard to strengthening and expanding its military. Over the next 10 years, Warsaw wants to recruit about 150,000 troops, bringing its army from the current 128,000 active personnel and 36,000 territorial defense troops to 300,000 soldiers. By way of comparison, the U.K., a nation with a long and proud military tradition, had 142,560 personnel serving in the British Armed Forces in 2023.

Poland has purchased over 1,000 new tanks and 600 artillery pieces, mainly from South Korea and the U.S. All of which gives the country more firepower than the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy combined. Those numbers would have been unthinkable during the height of the Cold War – but they’re a cold, hard fact of today showing just how determined Poland would be to repel any Russian show of aggression.

They also boast 33 new M1 Abrams tanks as part of a €4.5 billion order of 250. Poland is also awaiting delivery of around 1,000 K2 Black Panther main battle tanks from South Korea. Toss in additional tanks expected by 2025, and you get an even better idea of just what Poland currently brings to the table and what it will be capable of in the short- to medium-term.

When it comes to the country’s emerging artillery capabilities, Poland has spent €9.2 billion to purchase 468 HIMARS rocket launchers. They are a potentially battle-altering piece of equipment, the type used by Ukrainian forces against the Russians over the past two years. “The Polish army must be so powerful that it does not have to fight due to its strength alone,” said Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki in November of 2023. The ultimate aim of the current Polish government is to build “the most powerful land forces in Europe.”

If Putin were to shift focus to NATO targets within Poland’s borders, or even launch a full-blown invasion of the country itself, it would be safe to say that he would face even stiffer resistance than he has in Ukraine. Poland has not only sufficient troop numbers but also the requisite military hardware to defend its territories against any proposed invasion.

But would even this be enough to deter Putin from risking another geopolitical gamble? To answer that question, we need to take a closer look at the current conflict in Ukraine. First and foremost, Russia has suffered major losses in a war that has already lasted far longer than Putin predicted at the onset of the invasion.

A report from Reuters estimated that Russia has suffered losses to the tune of 315,000 dead or wounded troops. To provide the appropriate historical context, in the brutal and bloody nine-year war in Afghanistan, Russia lost 14,500 troops.

But there isn’t only the human cost to calculate in any war. Russia has also suffered huge losses in terms of military hardware. According to a Newsweek report, as the conflict approached its 600th day, Russian forces had lost thousands of tanks, armored personnel vehicles, and artillery systems. Total Russian aircraft losses totaled over 300, as well as numerous drones and naval vessels.

Frederik Mertens, a strategic analyst, made the following observation about the toll the conflict had taken on Russian forces: “Destroying your enemy remains your first priority in battle, and Ukraine seems to have done far better than the Russians.” All of which shows what a devastating impact the war in Ukraine has had on both Russian troop numbers and the Kremlin’s resources.

As a result, would Russia be in a position to attack NATO targets or even invade the Baltic states and Poland any time soon? Worryingly, Putin probably thinks so. Why? According to a report, Putin plans to seriously overhaul his military forces by 2026.

But what does this expansion consist of, exactly? If the rumblings coming out of the Kremlin are to be believed, this will mean a dramatic increase in troops, bringing numbers up to 1.5 million active personnel, along with infrastructure and armament build-up. The Institute for the Study of War sees this as a clear plan designed “to build a significantly stronger Russian military quickly.”

However, the ISW did deliver a significant caveat to that claim – and this would significantly affect the country’s capabilities of attacking NATO targets in the future. While Russia might be able to maintain the tempo of their localized offensive operations in eastern Ukraine in the near term, “it is unclear if Russian forces will be able to conduct effective rotations in the long term or in the event of intensified Russian offensive efforts or a significant Ukrainian counteroffensive operation.”

But why would Russia want to build its military strength quickly? The obvious answer is to boost their flagging attempts to conclude the conflict in Ukraine. However, many would argue that Putin has always been playing the long game concerning any military expansion – and not just concerning the current war.

For proof, take a look north. The Arctic region is considered a crucial geopolitical stronghold, and the key to future world influence for any aspiring superpower. Since 2005, Putin has reopened and refurbished many military bases in the North Atlantic, to the point that Russia now has many more active facilities than NATO and the U.S. combined.

These sites host icebreakers, nuclear submarines, significant troop deployments, and missile tests, not to mention the untapped resources. All of this presents a whole new and worrying picture. But will that include Russian attacks on NATO?

For many, talk of a Russian attack on NATO or invasion of any countries affiliated with the organization is premature, to say the least – but not completely out of the question. More conservative predictions suggest that a Russian conflict with NATO forces won’t take place for another five to eight years at the earliest.

Still, whatever the timelines involved, Europe and the rest of the world better prepare themselves for a potential major conflict. All of which brings us full circle. Undoubtedly, the global political situation is as tense, fraught, and potentially dangerous as it has been at any time since the end of the Cold War.

In addition to the conflict in Ukraine and ongoing hostilities in various regions, many other countries and political or militant groups are perpetrating aggressive acts against each other on a daily basis. Whether for territorial, geopolitical, or ideological reasons, one could argue that the world is teetering on the brink.

One decisive push in a certain direction and any number of conflicts could break out in any part of the globe at any given time. But what of the United States, a country that has never backed away from intervening on a global level? If Trump finds himself back in the White House at the end of the year, will that significantly increase the risk of war breaking out between Russia and NATO?

And perhaps more pertinently, how would NATO fare without arguably its most powerful and influential member, should the U.S. choose to leave the organization? How much of Vladimir Putin’s aggressive rhetoric should the global community take at face value?

For many years the Russian leader warned the West against any military expansion plans in Central and Eastern Europe. “It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.” The result: the invasion of Ukraine and all that has come with it.

At some point in 2024, the Russian premier is likely to have moved all of his chess pieces into place, meaning he’ll be ready to strike. At that point, NATO has good reason to be worried. And with the war-weary Western powers struggling to justify continued military action and financial backing to the beleaguered Ukrainian nation, will anybody be able to stop Russia?

But what do you think? Is a concerted Russian attack on NATO part of Vladimir Putin’s long-term military strategy? Will NATO be able to rely on U.S. support in the face of any aggression from the Kremlin? Perhaps the answers to all these questions and more lie with the upcoming presidential elections. When the American people finally speak, it may have seismic repercussions for peace and stability across the globe.

Now check out “China vs United States – 2023 Military / Army Comparison – Who Would Win?” Or watch this video instead!

—

This version maintains the original message while ensuring it is appropriate for a wider audience.