What if the United States leaves NATO?

U.S. President Donald Trump, who came to power with the promise of isolationism, is moving towards its goal by running the risk of disrupting the state apparatus.

Some of the major steps Trump has so far taken for the sake of isolation include the decision to withdraw from Syria, the imposition of steel tariffs (trade war) and building a border wall.

Of course, this isolation perspective of the U.S. administration, which dominates the global markets and politics, is far from being an internal affair. U.S. allies will directly be influenced by these Trump policies.

Undoubtedly, the EU is among the most prominent allies of the U.S. since the defense of the old continent is currently in the hands of the U.S. Even in strong EU countries like Germany, thousands of U.S. military officers are on duty. For the rest of the story, we must take note of the following words of the French Defense Minister Florence Parly which led us to discuss the question in the title:

"If you put together the U.S. and Europe, and you will see that the U.S. has 71 percent of surveillance aircraft, 72 percent of attack helicopters, 81 of strategic transport, 91 percent of air tankers, 92 percent of MALE and HALE unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 100 percent of strategic bombers and ballistic missile advance alert systems."

Of course, the French minister did not share this data for no reason. In Europe, Trump's asking the European allies to spend 2 percent of their GDPs on defense is a serious matter of debate. No one doubts that Trump might do anything if this target is not achieved.

Saying that "the Europeans have a hell of homework in front of them if they want to stand on their two feet," in the face of the impending possibility of a threat, Parly thinks the U.S. might even leave NATO.

Can such a thing happen? We have already seen that anything is possible if Trump is in question.

In this case, what should Europe do to guarantee its future and security?

Of course, protecting the power and function of NATO is the priority. In this respect, Turkey is of key importance since the country shoulders a strategic function "at the gate of Europe," the eastern border and most critical place for the organization. To remember how and why Turkey's position is so crucial, it is enough to note that Ankara hosted millions of Syrian refugees and immigrants by paying heavy prices to set an impediment to their possible flow to Europe.

The EU should respect Turkey's choice of purchasing the S-400 aerial defense systems from Russia as Turkey could not rely on its NATO ally the U.S. since the latter provides military and political support to the PKK terror group. Moreover, the EU must make it clear that it does not accept the covert U.S. threats against Turkey regarding the F-35 jets, which go against alliance relations.

Otherwise, they will have to face yet another problem in the short term while discussing the possibility of the U.S. departure from NATO.

Parly undauntedly said the following on the subject: "I am personally more concerned at the notion that the strength of NATO's solidarity might be made conditional on allies buying this or that equipment. The alliance should be unconditional, otherwise, it is not an alliance. NATO's solidarity clause is called article V, not article F-35." Hopefully, her stance could set an example to other politicians who care about the future of Europe.