In the article Trump’s Unrealistic Expectations for NATO from earlier this week, The Fulda Gap critiqued Trump’s suggestion that NATO “wasn’t taking care of terror.” On one hand this statement is untrue, as NATO has offered its services in the form of training and AWACS communication and command aircrafts. On the other hand his statement was true in the sense that NATO does not perform operations against terror attacks in the way he thinks that they should. This article and the next two installments serve to substantiate the argument against the President’s perceptions on the role of NATO.
Pt. 1: US Reflections of Russian Deceptions
Experts at the NATO Defense College propose special attention to commitments closer to the Alliance’s original priorities: “to keep the Russians out [and the] Americans in…” The West has entered a rebirth of the Cold War, but one where the our President, a rhetorically belligerent and Raegan-like character, is not spouting simplified, cautionary tales of Russia. Instead, Trump has sympathized with Putin, a leader with similar views of the world, constructed through multimodal propaganda campaigns.
NATO recognizes dangers inherent in Trump expressing sympathies over sanctions against Russia for annexing parts of Ukraine, a feat achieved through intricately constructed information warfare. Situations like this and the conflict in Syria have set up multiple opportunities for Trump to cooperate with Putin’s plans, a prospect which makes many Western institutions nervous. At this time, nothing would be more beneficial to Russian geopolitical objectives than a US lack of faith in international institutions like NATO the UN.
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn declaring Iran is “on notice” for false accusations in a briefing at the White House.
In an increasingly polarized political environment, the US is mirroring a post-truth Russia. The reflection presents itself as White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer continues to deliver alternative facts. On Thursday, Spicer used his position to claim support for WH National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s decision to put “Iran on notice” for actions against the US navy. It was later confirmed by Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood that neither of those parties were involved. Rather, a group loosely connected to the Iranian government, the Houthis, had conducted a “ballistic missile test and an attack on a Saudi naval vessel” off the coast of Yemen. It is all too easy to start a conflict this way.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says Trump’s Muslim Ban a “great gift to extremists” (extremist sentiments towards America)
Iran has already responded to Trump’s travel ban against 7 Muslim-majority countries, restricting US passport holders from acquiring visas as well as a move away from using the US dollar. If Trump’s administration continues to be recklessly antagonistic in its foreign policy and rhetoric, a false accusation could breed actual conflict.
In contrast to the Trump administration’s sprawling efforts at narrative control, Russia’s use of misinformation has rendered more calculated results influenced by predetermined objectives. This disparity in the face of an emboldened Russia makes experts such as Samantha Power nervous about future relations and possible conflicts emerging.
In her final speech as US Ambassador to the UN, Power spared niceties as she broke down the threats Russia poses both foreign and domestic. NATO shares these concerns and has compiled several reports detailing Moscow’s methods of information and narrative control. So far, Putin’s highly strategized propaganda has proven such falsehoods can be used to mask a conflict in whatever way is beneficial to Russian interests.
Even new UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has already condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine. However, President Trump has more influence over policies and public opinion surrounding relations with Russia. The administration’s confusingly isolationist slogan “America First” is popular amongst Trump supporters.
US Ambassador for the UN Nikki Haley called out Russian aggression against Ukraine.
As a result, it will be difficult to get public support for allocating military assets to a conflict that does not directly affect the US.
Trump sees NATO resources as a means to prevent ISIS terror attacks that could potentially happen on US soil. With the public’s general confusion about the administration’s stance towards Russia, NATO’s responsibility to bolster the sovereignty of its member states may seem contrary to the ideals and promises suggested by Trump’s slogan, “America First.”
