WHAT TRUMP IS REALLY ASKING NATO

Today, US President Donald Trump heads to the annual NATO summit in Brussels, and his counterparts are bracing for a storm. Trump, breaking with seven decades of US policy, has questioned the value of an alliance that is overwhelmingly supported by American cash and troops. What exactly, he wonders, is the US getting by paying for all of this?


Leaving aside Trump’s impetuous style – the question isn’t really a new one. After all, what is the continuing relevance of an alliance that was born more less when Trump was? For 42 years after its founding in 1949, NATO had a clear and singular mission: to defend Western Europe from Soviet expansionism. Full stop.

Then the USSR collapsed, and the alliance struggled to refashion itself, variously as

A Western security umbrella for former Soviet bloc countries eager to escape Moscow’s sphere of influence for good (this, of course, greatly annoyed Russia)

A counter-terrorism alliance (9/11 was the only event that has ever triggered NATO’s collective defense clause)

A vehicle for US-led multilateral military action in places such as the Balkans in the 1990s (clearly successful) and, later, Libya during the Arab Spring (perhaps less so).

Each of those missions had its merits and drawbacks, but neither individually nor collectively did they constitute a coherent vision for NATO’s continued existence. Instead, US belief in the alliance’s worthiness as an instrument of US power carried it along. Trump’s break with that assumption has thrown the question of the alliance’s purpose into sharper relief than ever before.

What are some possible ways to revive NATO’s purpose? Perhaps there is a (back to the) future option for NATO as a bulwark against fresh Kremlin efforts to assert Russian influence along the former Soviet fringes. Perhaps NATO could be refashioned as a cyber-power alliance that can focus on the coming conflicts of the 21st century. Or is it enough that NATO, along with other institutions like the EU, has kept an unprecedented peace at the heart of a continent that, until 1945, had seen centuries of nationalistic and sectarian bloodletting?

As Trump arrives in Brussels, his NATO counterparts will not only need to have good answers about what they are prepared to pay – but also what they, as members, are prepared to do to make the alliance worthwhile and relevant in the 21st century.

On the latest episode of Bank of America's That Made All the Difference podcast, Ken Burns explores the opportunity to come out of this moment as better versions of ourselves — and reveals whether a film about this year is in the cards.

Listen to the new episode here.

The twin explosions at Beirut's port on Tuesday were so powerful that the aftershocks reverberated as far as the Eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus, 150 miles away. The specter of fire and smoke was such that many suggested on social media that Beirut had experienced a nuclear blast.

In the days ahead, more details will come to light about why a deadly cache of materials was haphazardly stashed at a port warehouse, and why Lebanon's government failed to secure the site. So, what comes next for crisis-ridden Lebanon?

More Show less

Former Spanish King Juan Carlos I's decision to leave the country after being investigated for corruption has reignited the debate over the future of the monarchy in Spain. Opinions are divided between mostly older Spaniards who defend the institution's role as a symbol of national unity, and the younger generations and nationalist regions who want Spain to become a republic. More than three quarters of the world's countries are now republics, but 44 still have a king or queen as their head of state — among them the 16 Commonwealth countries officially ruled by British Queen Elizabeth II and 5 countries where the sovereign is all-powerful. We take a look at which countries remain monarchies today, and those that sent their royals packing in the post-World War II waves of decolonization and republicanism.

Modi riles up his base: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday set the first stone for a new Hindu temple to be built over the remains of a Mughal-era mosque in Uttar Pradesh state. The site, in the town of Ayodhya, has been disputed for decades by Hindus and Muslims, but the Supreme Court last November ruled, based on archeological findings, that construction of the temple could begin. The ruling dismayed many of India's 180 million Muslims, who worry that Modi — who was accompanied at the ceremony by Mohan Bhagwat, an ultranationalist Hindu activist whose followers helped to destroy the old mosque amid a wave of sectarian violence in 1992 — wants to replace India's secular foundations with his more explicitly Hindu vision of the country's identity. Although months ago Modi saw sizable protests over a controversial new citizenship law that discriminated against Muslims, he has so far proven to be extremely resilient and remains widely popular in India.

More Show less

280 million: Democratic candidate Joe Biden plans to spend $280 million on campaign ads in his battle against US President Donald Trump. Although Trump trails the former vice president by 7 points in an average of national polls, the incumbent has set aside less than half that amount for ads of his own.

More Show less