2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Brad Sallows]

And Macron pointing out the obvious, a defensive alliance is for defence.

From the US PoV, some NATO countries are going to have to revisit their notions of stranding hundreds of billions worth of US military assets by effectively vetoing use. "We are happy to have you spend your money here for decades to secure us from the threat of Russian aggression, but reserve the right to prevent you from dual-use of what you paid for" won't do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I was curious and did a bit of searching and it seems to be an open question whether the U.S. president can withdraw the country from a treaty like NATO or if it requires congressional authorization.

Treaty withdrawal in general is an unsettled constitutional question. Congress passed specific legislation on NATO withdrawal in 2023, but it hasn't been tested (constitutionality) yet.

 

[lenaitch]

Maybe Trump will have him visit the White House together with Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa again. Get them both in suits, no robes or head scarfs.

So him and JD give them a public dressing down in front of the gilded fireplace.

 

[ytz]

I was curious and did a bit of searching and it seems to be an open question whether the U.S. president can withdraw the country from a treaty like NATO or if it requires congressional authorization.

Sure. But also kind of irrelevant. Simply knowing he won't honour the treaty or drag his feet will massively boost Vlad's confidence.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I was curious and did a bit of searching and it seems to be an open question whether the U.S. president can withdraw the country from a treaty like NATO or if it requires congressional authorization.

Apparently POTUS cannot end US membership nor can he modify the legislative terms of US membership without Congress, but he can do the following:

1. reduce forces to near zero, order an end to US participation in most NATO activities and programs,
2. order NATO out of the US,
3. close US bases and installations supporting NATO,
4. stop selling arms, parts and upgrades
5. End or edit sharing of intelligence,
6. Deny use of spectrum coverage including use of satellite uplink and certain GPS dependent systems.
7. Have the US NATO Ambassador slow walk, push back and generally obstruct invocation of Articles.

All of the above sound like the Trump we all know.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Apparently POTUS cannot end US membership nor can he modify the legislative terms of US membership without Congress, but he can do the following:

1. reduce forces to near zero, order an end to US participation in most NATO activities and programs,

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

1. order NATO out of the US,

Is there enough to matter?

1. close US bases and installations supporting NATO,

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

1. stop selling arms, parts and upgrades

Sensible, if US needs all of its own consumption to solve all of its own problems. (They get to define their own problems and solutions; others do not get to dictate.)

Etc.

The US can't afford a bespoke compartmented commitment for each multi-lateral defence arrangements it has. In effect it needs to be able to employ all its assets worldwide, if there is to be any hope that it will continue to supply a modicum of security worldwide.

The problem here is that Israel and the US each have an "Iran problem" (different for each, more pronounced for Israel) that they have been almost entirely left to solve themselves. Now they're solving it, in ways that others would prefer they don't. In solving it, they're creating "Iran problems" for others. And they're leaving others to solve for themselves...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

Is there enough to matter?

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

Sensible, if US needs all of its own consumption to solve all of its own problems. (They get to define their own problems and solutions; others do not get to dictate.)

Etc.

The US can't afford a bespoke compartmented commitment for each multi-lateral defence arrangements it has. In effect it needs to be able to employ all its assets worldwide, if there is to be any hope that it will continue to supply a modicum of security worldwide.

The problem here is that Israel and the US each have an "Iran problem" (different for each, more pronounced for Israel) that they have been almost entirely left to solve themselves. Now they're solving it, in ways that others would prefer they don't. In solving it, they're creating "Iran problems" for others. And they're leaving others to solve for themselves...

Agree, I guess.
I guess to put this another way, he can do everything that DeGaulle did ( or could have done), except stay in Europe.