From trump to biden what will happen to nato?

The article is devoted to the analysis of the process of transformation of NATO in the post-bipolar period and forecasting the prospects of the alliance. In the context of the bloc’s evolution, as well as taking into account the different approaches to US foreign policy on the part of the two leading parties and the most influential political and ideological groups, the authors investigate the reasons for the deterioration of transatlantic relations, including how Washington used the potential of the alliance to solve its strategic tasks in the past and present. It is noted that after the end of the Cold War, all US presidents to some extent used unilateral approaches to achieve the national interests of the United States at the expense of NATO, which contributed to the accumulation of discontent in Europe with American dominance in the alliance and the desire for a certain autonomy in the field of defense and security. In fact, President D. Trump continued the traditional conservative policy of B. Obama towards NATO, which was supposed to ensure the implementation of the strategy of “Pivot to Asia”. The Republicans’ use of harsh rhetoric and threats has seriously undermined transatlantic solidarity. Although conservative political and ideological groups in the United States actively supported Trump’s approach as “effective”, nevertheless, the majority of groups in both parties (liberals, realists and neoconservatives) for various reasons believed that such a policy does not meet American interests and it is necessary to consider the possibility of granting the EU greater independence in the field of defense and security. Since after Biden’s victory, the initiative on the issue of NATO policy passed into the hands of representatives of liberal groups, the President will have to look for ways to synthesize the points of view of progressives, “restorationists” and “reformists” within the framework of internal party competition. It is concluded that in the context of the new balance of power in the world the Biden administration will most likely be forced to abandon the traditional vision of the role of NATO in favor of the “reformist” concept of “strategic autonomy” of Europe.

1. Arbatova N.K. (2015). Evroatlanticheskie otnosheniya v XXI veke: problemy i scenario [Euro-Atlantic Relations in the XXI century: problems and scenarios]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 11. P. 31–37.

2. Belin C. (2019). NATO matters, but the EU matters more. The Brookings Institution. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/04/02/nato-matters-but-the-eu-matters-more/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).

3. Bloch A., Goldgeier J. (2020). Reviving the trans-Atlantic relationship. The Brookings Institution. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/11/17/reviving-the-trans-atlanticrelationship/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).

4. Burton J. (2018). NATO’s Durability in a Post-Cold War World. New York: SUNY Press. 294 p.

5. Carafano J. (2020). Defender-Europe Not a 21st Century REFORGER. The Heritage Foundation. URL: https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/defender-europe-not-21st-century-reforger (accessed: 15.03.2021).

6. Coffey L. (2020). U.S. Should Keep Troops in Germany. The Daily Signal. June 18. URL: https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/06/18/us-should-keep-troops-in-germany/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).

7. Cordesman A. (2020). Ending America’s Grand Strategic Failures. Center for Strategic and International Studies. URL: https://www.csis.org/analysis/ending-americas-grand-strategic-failures (accessed: 15.03.2021).

8. Danilov D.A. (2019).70 let NATO: yubilej na fone politicheskih raznoglasij [70 years of NATO: anniversary amid political divisions]. Nauchno-analiticheskij vestnik IE RAN. No. 6. P. 73–79.

9. Danilov D.A.(2017). Severoatlanticheskij al’yans: bremya Trampa [The North Atlantic Alliance: Trump's burden]. Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'. No. 4. P. 19–41.

10. Dębski S. (2020). Biden and the World: What a U.S. Presidential Transition Means. Council on Foreign Relations. URL: https://www.cfr.org/article/biden-and-world-what-us-presidential-transition-means (accessed: 15.03.2021).

11. Istomin I.A., Bolgova I.V., Sushentsov A.A., Rebro O. (2020.) Logika evolyucii NATO: dostizheniya i perspektivy [NATO Evolution Logic: Achievements and Prospects]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 26–34.

12. Godenov I.S. (2012). Operativnye vozmozhnosti obshchej politiki bezopasnosti i oborony Evropejskogo Soyuza [Operational capabilities of the common security and defense policy of the European Union]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 75–79.

13. Kamp K.-H. (2019). Myths Surrounding the Two Percent Debate: On NATO Defence Spending. Bundesakademie fur Sicherheitspolitik. URL: https://www.baks.bund.de/de/node/2036 (accessed: 15.03.2021).

14. Kaufman J. P. (2017). The US perspective on NATO under Trump: lessons of the past and prospects for the future. International Affairs. Vol. 93. No. 2. P. 251–266.

15. Manojlo A.V. (2020). Sovremennye strategii kiberbezopasnosti i kiberoborony NATO [Modern NATO cybersecurity and cyber defense strategies]. Aktual'nye problemy Evropy. No. 3. P. 160–183.

16. Mastanduno M. (2008). After Bush: A Return to Multilateralism in U. S. Foreign Policy? Nanzan Review of American Studies. URL: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236154374.pdf (accessed: 15.03.2021).

17. Nadtochej YU.I., Hristenko D. N. (2019). Razdelenie finansovogo bremeni v NATO: staraya problema v novom zvuchanii [Sharing the financial burden in NATO: an old problem with a new meaning]. Aktual'nye problemy Evropy. No. 1. P. 56–77.

18. Nadtochej YU.I. (2014). Nazad v Evro-Atlantiku: pochemu NATO perestayot byt' global'noj organizaciej? [Back to the Euro-Atlantic: why is NATO ceasing to be a global organization?]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 6. P. 18–30.

19. Rohac D. (2018). NATO’s Choice: Adapt or Die. CAPX. URL: https://capx.co/natos-choice-adapt-or-die/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).

20. Sayle T.A. (2019). Enduring alliance: a history of NATO and the postwar global order. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 346 p.

21. Schmitt G. (2018). NATO’s strategic problem. American Enterprise Institute. URL: https://www.aei.org/articles/natos-strategic-problem/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).

22. Schrank P. G. et al. (2017). The Rise of Populism and the Future of NATO. Global Politics Review. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 53–62.

23. Shapiro J. (2018). Trump’s Meaningless NATO Spending Debate. The European Council on Foreign Relations. URL: https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_trumps_meaningless_nato_spending_debate (accessed: 15.03.2021).

24. Sloan S. (2008). How and Why Did NATO Survive Bush Doctrine? NATO Defense College. October, 2008. URL: http://www.atlanticcommunity.org/How%20and%20Why%20Did%20NATO%20Survive%20Bush%20Doctrine.pdf (accessed: 15.03.2021).

25. Timakova O.A. (2017). Novyj etap transformacii NATO [A new stage of NATO's transformation]. Vestnik Diplomaticheskoj akademii MID Rossii. Rossiya i mir. No. 4. P. 35–41.

26. Vojtolovskij F.G. (2017). «Opredelenie strategicheskih tselej – eto sfera ideologii...» [“The definition of strategic goals is the sphere of ideology...”]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 1. P. 157–168.

27. Voronov V.K. (2017). Evropejskij poryadok: mirovaya smena paradigmy? [The European Order: a global paradigm shift?]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 3. P. 36–44.

28. Wright T. (2020a). Between restoration and change. The Brookings Institution. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/10/01/between-restoration-and-change/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).

29. Wright T. (2020b). The quiet reformation of Biden’s foreign policy. The Brookings Institution. URL: https:// www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/20/the-quiet-reformation-of-bidens-foreignpolicy/ (accessed: 15.03.2021).