April 16 (UPI) -- NATO, created in 1949, has been the most successful alliance in history because member states of the Atlantic Community recognized that collective defense was essential to protecting security and preventing a catastrophe that followed World War I.
The overriding threat was the Soviet Union until it imploded in 1991. Still, during the first four decades of its life, NATO was often at one crossroads or another.
The Korean War, Dienbienphu, Suez, Vietnam, nuclear disarmament, Euromissiles and other crises tested the alliance. However, NATO prevailed, changing policy to fit the times. Post-USSR, NATO declared it would move "out of area or go out of business." After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2002, NATO turned east again.
Fearful of President Donald Trump's antagonism toward NATO, the U.S. Senate made it impossible for the United States to leave NATO without its permission. That has not stopped the White House from downgrading NATO with the intent to withdraw much American military capability and move to the Pacific. And it is doing so without a scintilla of analysis or study -- merely whim.
For more than a dozen years since 2004, I was privileged to sit on the Supreme Allied Commander Europe's, or SACEUR), Senior Advisory Board. That bond was the irreplaceable glue for the alliance, along with U.S. military presence. Now that bond is not only being eroded, but it also is being removed. The profound impact on Europe and its security cannot be overstated.
First, a predictable signal will be removing the U.S. flag officer at SACEUR and replacing him with a European. A U.S. flag has commanded NATO Europe since the beginning -- Army Gen. Dwight Eisenhower. A change immediately would loosen ties with U.S. forces. SACEUR is also double-hatted as commander, U.S. Forces Europe, with subordinate commanders. About 60,000 American troops are stationed in or around Europe.
Second, the United States is organized around a united command plan, with 11 combatant commands around which the European Command is organized and integrated into NATO with headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.
The administration seems determined to alter the command plan, downplaying Europe and emphasizing the Indo-Pacific Command and defending the homeland. Only Congress can prevent this. Will it?
Third, while the intent is to force or cajole Europe to pay more for its defense -- an aim of virtually U.S. presidents -- this shock and awe treatment has no real purpose. After all, who shall lead in Europe as or if the United States withdraws? Leadership is weak. United Kingdom Prime Minister Sir Keith Starmer certainly has taken a lead regarding Ukraine. But the U.K. is no longer in the European Union, and some believe it has raised the imaginary drawbridge over the English Channel.
A critical question for NATO members is whether the United States will honor NATO's Article 5 centerpiece in that "an attack against one shall be considered an attack against all." The "shall be considered" is not absolute, as Trump complained the United States might only defend those NATO members who "pay their fair share." Of course, there is no fair share in that sense, the sticking point being the share of gross domestic product spent on defense.
What can NATO and Europe do? Despite pleas for more defense spending, NATO and Europe need a plan and strategy should the United States withdraw, as appears likely. The nuclear deterrent needs reinforcement. French President Emmanuel Macron has called for revising that, which is quite smart and should be pursued.
About a strategy, given the many advantages Europe has over Russia in size, population, GDP, geography and military forces -- and how Ukraine has prevented Moscow from overrunning the country -- a "porcupine defense" should be studied. A porcupine defense would so disrupt, defeat and overwhelm any Russian military strike on the West to make it too costly for Moscow even to consider. The technologies to achieve this from drones, mines, long range missiles, information and electronic warfare, as well as psychological operations, are well-known.
Given that the Russian military has been eviscerated in Ukraine, with estimates of perhaps 1 million dead and wounded, and understanding how long it takes to rebuild an army, Europe has at least five to seven years' lead time if it starts now. And if the notion of a short war does not work, the nuclear deterrent has a role here.
What is inconceivable is that a Trump transition from Europe will have been made without any strategic analysis or consultation with allies -- not just in Europe, but in Asia, which may not be happy with this shift. Whether Europe and NATO react to this dangerous scenario, should it arise, is far from certain. But rest assured in Moscow, President Vladimir Putin is thinking "Do svidaniya, NATO."
Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and chairman of the Killowen Group, who served on the SACEUR Advisory Board from 2004 to 2016. His next book, co-authored with General The Lord David Richards, is Arc of Failure: Strategic Delusions in a Dangerous and AI0-Driven World.
