What does the US get out of NATO? — And why Rubio is talking to Trump through the TV

In this video, I reflect on Marco Rubio's statements about whether the United States should leave NATO. It is remarkable that in all his communication about it, Rubio always makes sure to emphasize the benefits for the United States of being a member of NATO. It looks like the type of communication that is well known in Russia, where leading figures try to convey messages to the president through the media rather than through direct communication.

Watch the video here or read the transcript below.

Best,
Anders

Transcript:

It's been a while since I released a video because I've been very busy and also sick, but I thought I'd get back into it by making a pretty simple video about something that Marco Rubio said recently that I found interesting. It's about whether the United States should withdraw from NATO given that many NATO allies have been reluctant to help the United States with a war on Iran. I think it says something interesting both about what the United States actually gets out of being in NATO, but also about how communication works internally in the White House today. So let's talk about it.

There are several interesting aspects to what Marco Rubio has been saying about NATO in the wake of the war in Iran. But before I go into those things, I think it would be helpful to just hear an example of how Marco Rubio talks about it. So here is Marco Rubio talking about a meeting he had with the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni.

Mr. Secretary, can you say in your meeting with Prime Minister Meloni whether you talked about the possibility of withdrawing U.S. troops from Italy as well as the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO altogether?

We didn't discuss any specifics like that, and that's a decision for the president to make. It's a decision every president makes. The fact of the matter, though, is—and I said publicly and I've said repeatedly—I've been a strong supporter of NATO throughout my career in the Senate and even now. One of the advantages of being in NATO is that it allows us to have forces deployed in Europe and bases that allow us a logistical ability to project power in case of contingencies. Well, we had a contingency, and some countries in Europe, like Spain as an example, denied us the use of those bases for a very important contingency. In some ways, the denial of those bases actually impeded the mission. Not severely, but it had a cost, and in fact, even created some unnecessary dangers. So if one of the main reasons why the U.S. is in NATO is the ability to have forces deployed in Europe that we could project to other contingencies, and now that's no longer the case, at least when it comes to some NATO members, that's a problem and has to be examined. But ultimately, that's a decision for the president to make. His team and people like myself and others will provide him with what those potential options are. But ultimately, he'll have to make that decision. He hasn't made those decisions yet.

I think there are fundamentally three important things to say about what Marco Rubio said here. The first one is that it is going to make people angry in Europe. These statements are not going to be well received here. The reason is that Rubio essentially argues that the United States is engaged in NATO, not because it is interested in defending other alliance members, but rather because it enables the United States to project power outside of NATO. And that's a problematic statement because NATO is fundamentally a defensive alliance, and it's not in any of the founding documents of NATO that any member state needs to assist with wars of aggression that other member states might conduct around the world.

So the way people hear Marco Rubio's statements here in Europe is that the United States doesn't really care about protecting the European allies against Russia. And that's kind of problematic because in Europe, it really seems like the most important task for the alliance at the moment is to defend against Russia. So many Europeans get angry when they hear Rubio saying these things.

But I think it's important to understand that it doesn't really matter what the Europeans think here because Rubio is not actually talking to the Europeans. It sounds as if he is, but in reality, he's not. What Rubio is actually doing is trying to contribute to the American debate about NATO by framing the answer the way he does.

The argument he's trying to bring to the table is that there are actually important benefits for the United States in being part of NATO, and that's an important perspective because many of the other top figures in the American administration don't really seem to share that perspective. They only complain about how the Europeans are useless as allies and how they try to take advantage of the United States and things like that.

So what Rubio is trying to point out here is that there are actually significant advantages for the United States in having this global system of alliances that was built after the Second World War. Having allies across the globe has allowed the United States to project power worldwide by taking advantage of bases and infrastructure, intelligence networks, and all kinds of other things and resources that come along with having partners that are scattered around the globe in strategic positions.

So when Rubio complains about how the Europeans have not allowed the United States to use those bases during the war on Iran, on first glance it sounds like criticism of the Europeans and that he's arguing that maybe the United States should perhaps withdraw from NATO. But in reality, what he's saying is that the Americans need to think very carefully before starting to dismantle that system that has given the United States this global reach as a military power.

I think it's actually perfectly fair for American politicians to make that argument and to justify their contribution to NATO by looking at what kinds of benefits the United States gets out of these global alliances. It's a bit naive if Europeans think that the United States is only engaged in NATO for our benefit.

The reality is that NATO is just one part of a global system of alliances that has, in fact, been extremely beneficial for the United States. It is this system that has made the United States a global superpower. It's also the system that's made the United States the richest country in the world. And that's also why I think it's an absolute tragedy for the United States that they are now dismantling this system because that is, in fact, what Donald Trump's policies are leading to.

So there is something almost absurd about the richest country in the world complaining about how everyone else is taking advantage of them. But that is actually the message coming from many people at the top of the American system right now, from Trump, from Vance, from Hegseth, and others. And Rubio is trying to set up a counter-argument against those people and to point out that maybe it's not the greatest idea to withdraw from the alliances that have made the United States such a strong country over the last century.

So that's the second point. Rubio is not actually talking to the Europeans here. He's trying to contribute to an American debate about engagement in the global alliance system and whether it's a good idea to withdraw from NATO. And of all the people at the top of the American administration, Rubio actually seems to be the one who understands what's at stake.

The last thing I want to point out is that what Rubio is doing here says quite a lot about how things work inside the Trump administration today. If you've been following Russian politics for a longer period of time, this style of communication that Rubio demonstrates is going to be remarkably familiar. Because that's exactly how people in the circles around Putin have been trying to communicate for years.

They don't have access to Putin personally, or they can't tell him directly what they think. So instead, they try to transmit messages to Putin through the media. And since they also can't say directly in the media that they disagree with Putin or that they think Putin might have missed something, what they do instead is wrap it in a container where ostensibly they are explaining to the public what Putin is doing and why it's brilliant and smart because it addresses this or that issue. But then they attach the message that they want to get through to Putin as if it were an issue that he's already trying to address, when in reality it's not. But it's something that they would like Putin to be aware of and they would like him to address.

This message by Rubio smells exactly the same. He's trying to get a message through to Donald Trump about how the United States is actually benefiting from NATO and that it would be a bad idea to do anything drastic. But he's trying to conceal it in a way that makes it appear as if he's simply explaining to the public what kinds of considerations Donald Trump is already making.

I think it says quite a lot about how things work inside the White House today that Rubio appears to be resorting to this type of public communication to get a message through to the leader. Rubio is, after all, both the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor. But apparently, he does not have direct access to discuss these issues face-to-face with the president.

Now, I don't think it's actually because Rubio doesn't have physical access to Donald Trump, but it does correlate with stories about how Trump is really difficult to deal with in face-to-face meetings. As his advisor, you're not really allowed to tell him something he doesn't know, and you are not allowed to appear to be lecturing him because he doesn't like that. And he also doesn't like to receive long briefings. So every message has to be a maximum of forty-five seconds long.

But at the same time, it's also well known that Donald Trump likes to watch TV and to consume a lot of news that way. And what this type of communication from Rubio indicates is that his closest advisors apparently find it easier to reach the president through TV interviews than they do in actual physical meetings with him. Or at least that they feel what they tell him in private needs to be reinforced by making sure that he gets the same message again when he watches the news on TV in the evening.

So I do think this message from Marco Rubio is interesting for several reasons. First, it does lay out the argument for why the United States actually benefits from this global system of alliances that has been built up over many decades and has made the United States the richest and strongest country in the world. But it also tells us something about how decision-making in the White House happens and how Donald Trump's closest advisors apparently feel the need to communicate with him through the media rather than doing it face-to-face.

So suddenly we see this strange phenomenon from Russia that we've known for a while, where people try to influence the president's policies by pretending to explain in the media what the president is doing. That this phenomenon is beginning to show up in the American media landscape as well. And I think that's worth noticing.

Book announcement

Now, before I wrap up, I just want to mention that my book is finally out in international bookstores such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other international retailers.

The book actually came out in English around Christmas, but so far it's been kind of difficult to order internationally because you could only get it through bookstores in Denmark or you could get it directly from me. And unfortunately, that has meant that shipping costs have been very high. Actually, for most countries, the shipping costs have been higher than the price of the book itself. And obviously, that is not great. But now that you can get it in international bookstores, the costs are much more manageable.

I'm going to leave a couple of links in the video description where you can get the book, but really you can just search for it anywhere and it should be easy to find. If you order it this way, it will be a paperback and not a hardcover like this one, but the words inside are exactly the same.

I've also received quite a lot of requests for the audiobook. It is coming. It was supposed to be out a long time ago, but we ran into some problems with it. It's actually quite an interesting story. I will tell it at a later point, but the audiobook is coming and we're working hard on it.

And with that, I am going to wrap it up. But if you found the video helpful or informative, then please leave it a like and remember to subscribe to the channel and click the bell icon so you will get notifications when I publish new videos. And if you want to support the channel, you can get access to some bonus videos if you subscribe on my website, www.logicofwar.com. Thank you very much for watching, and I will see you again next time.