 This is global connections, where we examine the dots and we put the dots together in a world that's changing while we watch. And one big change that could happen, maybe likely to happen, is that Trump gets elected or finds a way to occupy the Oval Office again, and he destroys NATO. He's made that very clear that he will do that if he gets a chance. And elevate Russia so they can do, quote, what the hell they want, end quote. This is actually just another important reason not to vote for it. We can't afford that. But let's look at it as a sort of a political experiment, a geopolitical experiment. What happens without NATO? We've been examining what happens if Trump is elected, how our world will change. This is a very scary story. But let's do the Emil Zola-esque kind of political experiment and ask, what happens without NATO? So for this discussion, we have Dr. Roopmati Kondakar. She's one of our esteemed guests, skilled, experienced, and thoughtful about geopolitics. And we'll see what she has to say about the implications of a world without NATO. Welcome to the show, Roopmati. Aloha, Jay. And thank you for having me on this show. And it's nice to talk about what happens without NATO. I wish we could talk about, if Trump was not running for president this time, isn't it? That would be a much better topic. It would be a happy topic. So let's talk about it. I mean, there's all kinds of implications and things, you know, and we have to speculate at least to some extent. But NATO has been the 800-pound guerrilla of Europe, of the Western world, not to say that NATO has been involved in violence or war, but just deterrence for a long time since World War II, except on one occasion, you know, only one time, Article 5 of the NATO agreement has been invoked. And when was that? It was right after 9-11 when NATO came to the aid of the United States after it was attacked on 9-11. That's the only time that NATO and Article 5 have been invoked. But it has stood as a huge deterrent to other regression until now. So let's talk about what would happen. What would happen if there were no NATO? You can address this from any side, any perspective you want. Yeah, NATO was formed as a deterrent, and it was formed as a counter to Warsaw. So we know that this is the only viable military defence cooperation that the world has at its disposal. And NATO acts on world affairs with the international system as United States as hegemon. NATO carries a very prime role to play in the international system. And this notion is known as Collective Defence Day. And this notion of collective defence is very important. It's a transatlantic cooperation between Europe and America, Canada, Turkey. These people get relevance of a military stature through NATO. And NATO stands to be very vital in international relations day because of the infrastructure that it possesses. It only takes about 15 percent of U.S. military spending. But see the overwhelming impact that NATO has on international relations day. Because with NATO, there's a defence for those 41 European nations. What about collective security? Could European nations afford your security on their own? Can they afford a nuclear deterrent for each of the countries? They can't. They cannot simply, I can tell you one thing, they can't afford it. And America through NATO provides Europe that security umbrella that it gets. And biggest, biggest deterrent and biggest, biggest bear in the room is Russia. NATO is a shield for European nations against Russia. Ukraine, the whole issue of Ukraine trying to get into NATO and Russia opposing it, the rush to get inside NATO's protective umbrella is because of the response that NATO gives to crisis abroad. And their implementation of military strength does not require the infrastructure bureaucratic impediments like the UN. They act in the interest of the self-defence of its members. It's simple. You attack one NATO member and all the NATO members have to come in. So their collective defence logic is very simple. They don't have to go through resolutions. They don't have to go to veto. No, nothing. So this kind of quick action is only available to the world, say, privileged NATO members only through this infrastructure. So they simply can't afford to give it up. And the European nations stay, besides not affording it, they would have a defence policy like East European nations would concentrate only on Russia. West European nations would concentrate on the transatlantic. They would not have this comprehensive defence strategy. So that is why NATO players are very important role in foreign policy also when all the nations come together and frame their policies. Well, you know, it's already weakened, isn't it? I mean, for example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And it was only half a dozen countries at the beginning. But over time, they all wanted to have the benefit of that mutual defence. And a lot of countries came in and you think, maybe that wasn't so great that they came in, because they pulled the other way. And I'm thinking specifically of Turkey, which I don't think is a good member of NATO. I'm thinking of Hungary and autocracy, which I don't think is a good member of NATO. They'll pull the other way. So even now, and especially with Trump's remarks, and especially with Trump's remarks on how he would give away Ukraine and let Russia do what the hell it wants and for day one of his administration, you know, I'm not sure that NATO is what we had thought it was all of these years gone by. It has weak members or members who are not loyal, as we would wish. We have people who don't, countries that don't pay their freight, although most of them do. Trump lied about that. Most of them do pay the freight. On the other hand, their political will may not be the same as it was. You know, three weeks ago, a month ago, Olaf Scholz and Jen, what's his name, Stoltenberg in NATO and the EU, said that they were going to get $60 billion, $52 billion together to support Ukraine. I'm waiting for that to happen, hasn't happened. And meanwhile, Ukraine doesn't have ammunition, and it effectively lost another battle like yesterday. So this is very problematic already. Trump's comments are having an effect on the resolve of NATO, on the deterrent effect of NATO, and on Putin's approach. Putin is taking advantage. So gee whiz, it would get worse, wouldn't it? What would Russia do if there were no NATO? Say, right now we are in a hegemonic system that is one leader at the helm of the ship. But all critics, all the vocalists of the international system say that we are moving towards a multipolar world. And multipolar world means China and Russia cannot compete with the US. But together they are trying to come together. Together they are trying to come across as a viable option collectively against the United States. And when they come together, they are trying to get through NATO, the diminishing of the reliability and relevance of the NATO. There's a big factor in pushing China and Russia at the top chain to bring them to the top two players is, you know, giving a seesaw balance to the power of the US. And this, you know, when they operate, there's a regionalization of security rather than an internationalization of power, you know, of power politics, there is a kind of, you know, you'll have allies slipping away. And the US actually has does not have burden-sharing allies. Does not really, US bears the burden of most of the costs of most of the security-sharing arrangements of the trade-sharing arrangements. The US takes the lead. And NATO is one such institution where you provide military support. So that kind of is a very big factor, Jay, in stamping US authority in the international system. And when you undermine this, you're going to give Russia and China the chance to come up with alternative viables. And for them to, they do, they do get scared. The deterrent is true when Ukraine happened. You know, they were careful to say no, nothing of NATO is coming in. The countries are supporting on their own. If NATO had come in, it would have been a full onslaught of Warsaw versus NATO. But that is the kind of importance that NATO holds. So this, when you say that NATO is coming into help, that means they're going to deter Russia completely. And that kind of, we don't have any alternative to NATO. If there was any alternative NATO, and then we're talking of giving up NATO, it was a difference. But without having any alternative, you're giving up a military structure. And that is the problem. I think Putin would be more aggressive. And he would take greater advantage of Ukraine the moment he was sure that NATO was no longer in place. He would try to take more territory. He would try to take, it depends on the circumstances. He might try to take all of Ukraine, all of it. And really, one of the, as you said, one of the big, deterrent features is NATO, big feature. And if he was not blocked by NATO or the deterrent effect of NATO, he might try to take the whole Ukraine. And if no support was coming from the U.S., and if NATO wasn't supporting them, because it didn't exist, and the EU decided it was more to their advantage not to do anything, then what we would have is peacemen, I mean, appeasement out of Munich in 1939. It would be right the end of the West, so to speak, as a hegemonic force. So there's very great concern about Putin because he would see this as a big opportunity and all his predatory instincts would come into play. And he would be attacking weakness, weakness across the board. And that means weakness as far as Poland is concerned, which is a member of NATO. Weakness as far as the Baltics are concerned. Weakness as far as Scandinavia is concerned, Finland, Sweden. Weakness as far as the Balkans are concerned. That whole border would start moving, would be at risk. He's already pushed those countries, not by kinetic war, but by cyber war and by insidious undermining of the government there through crowds and protests that were working for him, paid protesters. I know he's done that in Romania. So what's happened here is that he's already moving, this would let him move much faster. And I think for this discussion, if we are assuming that NATO isn't there, we're also assuming that the U.S. isn't there. Right now we're nine months going on eight months away and Congress is locked up not going to do anything. There's no money for the Ukraine. And if Trump gets into office, there'll be no money for NATO. Or the U.T.U. would be in isolation. One of the things you mentioned as we were preparing for this is that the nature of borders would change. The nature of togetherness in Europe of a union of working together would change. And how would that work? If we say that there is no NATO, how would to change the relationships at the borders among all the EU countries? The most effective partnership in international relations is always about the might, the power, the military, the strength, and the operability of your ammunition. So this kind of transatlantic partnership which is spanning military operation operability is because of NATO. And when you have that missing and you lose the link, don't tell me markets are going to unite the countries the way military does. Europe has a feel-good factor or they come under the security blanket of the U.S. under NATO. And this missing would literally, Europe is in shambles right now looking at prospects of immigration, economic recession. These things are going to play a big factor in the coming years for European foreign policy and to not have a military operation and they will have the individual prospects, like we spoke about, the borders will implode. The end of globalization, like we discussed, becomes nearer and nearer. And they do not have international, you know, if America talks about markets, the factor that they do help militarily plays a very big role in considering all interactions. And if that was not an operation and you had to just consider market costs and, you know, assets, that would have, that would be a totally different ballgame. So this way, when you undermine NATO's credibility, you leave aside these factors also, the impact that military plays on these other factors of keeping globalization alive. This is the only legitimacy that NATO gives to the countries to operate. I mentioned that there'd be a certain amount of fragmentation among the countries of Western Europe. And for that matter, the Baltics and the Balkans as well, Scandinavia. And they wouldn't necessarily go in the same direction. You know, one logical possibility is that if there were no NATO, the members of the EU would create an alternative NATO. They would say, listen, we're going to pool our resources, we're going to come together. You know, we're going to meet in Strasbourg or somewhere. And we are going to make a mutual defense arrangement that replaces NATO. What do you think the possibilities are of that versus the other possibility is they would all be fragmented, all be weak, and some of them would seek special deals with Putin just to stay on his right side. But what's going to happen in terms of the solidarity of the former members of NATO and the EU? The second option seems more practical, Jay, because the first half of Europe can't afford a security blanket over it at all. 41 countries don't have the military spending that NATO does. And I'll tell you, NATO gives this operational military advantage. Anything happens under the banner of the NATO. Europe can play politics. Now, you tell me which individual European country has a standing in international politics to voice or to implement an opinion. So this kind of blanket operational military is not possible for European countries. It's only because of the courtesy of the US that this is possible. The United States is such a vital player in international relations. And you know, you have critics, you have a force which undermines this situation day in and day out. Tell me a world where you don't have European American decision making. And then you let me know what would be the state of affairs. There's a monitoring going on. There is a supervision on Putin would be on a mad run if there was no fear of NATO coming in and any moment of time. NATO operates in Brussels, but that kind of proximity that NATO has, it's right in the center of the world, like you said. Brussels is the cockpit of Europe. So America having a vantage point in Europe is a big factor for American politics, but it's a much bigger incentive for European countries to have a military shield from America. And Jay, more of interest to European partners than to America. Let's talk about the US for a minute you mentioned. Let's assume no NATO. Let's assume this fragmentation of Europe, isolationism begins to prevail. And we'll talk about autocracy in a minute. What happens in the US? One thing is I tell you, I would be very unhappy. I know you would be very unhappy. What can I do? What can we do? What can the Democratic Party do if the Republicans continue to block aid to Ukraine and allow a guy like Trump to pull the plug on NATO and effectively also on the EU? What happens here in this country? What's the echo effect? They went, or if and why, Trump should come to power. So we'll have some funding shut for big important issues like we had last time, climate change, UN funding, everything was just abruptly cut and he promises to cut off Ukrainian war funding. And that becomes a big, big issue because not only then Russia comes to close proximity to Europe, they do get a more challenging voice to now because of the supplying oil and gas. Such a big effect you could have. Such a big effect. $100 billion flew into, flowed into the Iranian economy. They were in shatters, they were shambles, and then they funded Israel war. This kind of implications that the cascading effects that every decision has, you know, you'll have put in, you know, jumping on the doorsteps of Europe and dictating terms of the oil and gas. You'll have so many other the and America House inside its borders. It is a global leader. So that kind of foreign policy domination has to be sustained because you can't have the dragon or Russia at the helm of international politics because like it or not, US has always played a benevolent role rather than a selfish role. But we are sure China or Russia as head of the international system would never play such a role of having a kind of balanced. They are very, very like we talk about selfish and they only talk about their motives and they are more interested in self propaganda like the Communist Party itself just talks about itself in China. The same way they would do in international politics. It's just about me, myself and I. And the US besides thinking of me, myself and I would also think about a small country. So that is the difference that the benevolence is the difference that the hegemon would needs to have. And the US has been successful because of this strategy. And NATO is a military wing of the US foreign policy. So for America to let go of NATO is also a big folly for American national interest. Let go of, you know, international geopolitics. Well, with a failure of NATO and the fragmentation of Europe and all that with that, do you think that would remind us of our true morality or would we be further still away from it? Because I think part of the model we're designing here is that Trump would be president and this is going to happen if Trump is president. If Biden were president, it wouldn't happen. We would continue to support NATO. But if Trump were president, gee whiz, would the failure of Europe, of Western Europe, of the West, so to speak, would that, do you think, change the politics in this country? Yes, Jay. Too fast it would change the politics of the country. Because Europe as a transatlantic ally, a conglomeration of 41 countries together is a big asset for US politics. And for them to have a big brother in the US is an advantage for them too. And you see, club them together, it's half of the world, more than half of the world. So that kind of market, that kind of industry, that kind of trade, and those number of borders open. They play a very important role in all this change. And when you have these kind of restrictions which would come in, or isolation politics that come in, it would not help American national foreign policy. And that is why we have to always look outward. That was the way, going outward was never the part of American policy. They never interfered in the world war. When World Harbor was attacked, then they came into the world war, right? So America has always been pushed to do things, rather than they're coming into action. So this NATO came in because Russia had formed the Warsaw Pact. So this kind of sustainability of the might is, naturally, it's a leader, the US. You remind me of this possibility that if the United States is no longer supportive of Europe, and the United States is the one that brought the sanctions, it's not just support for Ukraine now. It's not just support for NATO. It's the sanctions that we imposed on Russia, however effective and whatever we did to escape good part of those sanctions. It seems to me that if we had a fragmented Europe and a country that wasn't supporting NATO or the EU or Ukraine, those sanctions would be meaningless. They would go away in a moment. And the sanctions to the extent that Europe had imposed them on Russia, they would go away in a minute. In other words, the whole thing would be rolled back in Putin's favor. But you talk before the show about regime change, and you mentioned that a number of countries would suffer regime change, or maybe they're on the way to suffering regime change right now. Can you talk about that, Rupati? Yeah, Jay. NATO is a military operation mostly. The sanctions, economic, everything is fine. But the fear of the sword of military hanging on every neck is very important. And when you don't have this kind of thing, there will be regime changes because there'll be no supervision. And Jay, like in any human personality, unless you have a monitoring entity, they go, hey, why? The same happens for countries where you don't have a monitoring entity. They will play havoc in politics. And NATO operates in so many different areas of international system. Civil wars, they come and operate. Even in the responsibility to protect the United Nations, Libya, NATO was the first one to be there. If the UN doesn't operate NATO would. So that kind of reliability that NATO offers is a big factor in the regimes that operate. And Jay, in every country, we know politics is always unstable. And everybody's always waiting to take over. There's a coup happening. There is a mutiny happening. There's a civil, everything is very unpredictable. And without having the fear Europe would be Russianized, is it? So that kind of domination that we see, the entire regime could change Finland, Sweden, they would have a hard time in keeping their borders. They are very safe under NATO's umbrella. NATO, Finland. So now when you see these, without NATO, can the Scandinavian countries stand the might of Russia? It's a big question that they would have had, they would have to face. And the kind of role that Russia plays in regime operations is huge. They do dictate terms to all these regimes. They have these fighters. They have these operatives that take place and dictate terms to the politics of a country, which would go haywire if there was no NATO. Well, there always is the UN, I'm joking. There always is the UN. What effect would the end of NATO, for that matter, the EU have on the UN? Would it be able to step in? Would it be able to reorganize things and develop a mutual alliance of some kind, mutual defense arrangement? Or would that be possible? Jay, UN has been non-functional in the entire Ukraine-Israel episodes. They don't have any credibility left in international relations right now because of the lack of military operations and the overburden of bureaucracy. We don't have any decisions made. We have resolutions pending. We have books being written. We have everything done, but operation and implementation is missing. And NATO is the only military institution in the world which does that, leads and operates instantly. Without any, we have such burdens of veto. We have burdens of resolutions. We have voting. We have anti-war. Nothing. There's no alternative to it. You know, the Western Alliance has come together behind the U.S. in the name of NATO and in the shadow of NATO for a number of controversies and, you know, incidents around the Middle East. So, for example, there were NATO countries with the U.S. during the Iraq war. There were NATO countries with the U.S. in Afghanistan. There were NATO countries. There are NATO countries now. Maybe it's limited to the U.K. and maybe France. There are NATO countries now in the Red Sea. I'm trying to deal with the impediments to shipping by the attacks, by the Houthis. So, I guess they would all go away. Would they go away? Would we still see support for American presence, the American presence in the Middle East? I think we have to look at the Middle East separately. It's much more complex in a way. What would happen to our friends and partners when NATO was gone? Yeah, Jay. NATO, you know, the importance of NATO would be felt in all these points, like Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, where you have China and all coming in. Individually, if America goes to forge partnerships, it's fine. It does all that all the time. But that collective response, which happens at the blink of an eye, would be missing. That's the only thing that would be missing that if we had to get into any military operation, there is no existing structure that would be present to just get into implementation. They would have had to again have to be bilaterals, multilaterals, and then get into an agreement. Here it is that simple notion that I told you. If anybody attacks a NATO member, all NATO nations are obligated to come together and to support this collective security that there is. And more than a setback for the U.S., it would be a huge, huge setback for Europe and a big boost for Russia and a celebrating point for China. So this kind of comprehensive impact that the end of NATO would have is overwhelming, because it would change geopolitics in a very hard way. Well, let me ask about the elephant in the room as far as the Middle East is concerned is the war between Israel and Hamas. And Israel is making its way down to the south of Gaza. But at a cost of propaganda, Hamas has been very effective at convincing the world that Israel is the aggressor. And so we have a war that may not end right away. We have a war where a lot of countries have spoken and are still speaking in the International Court of Justice and in the media. And it's very hard on Israel because have hundreds of thousands of young people in the service and away from the economy. People don't realize the traumatic effect of all of that on Israel's economy. And all with the backdrop is that if Israel doesn't solve this problem, it's going to get worse, to be more attacks, more atrocities, and so forth. And the drumbeat for a two-state solution is, you know, it's, I don't know if that helps or will help. But my question to you is, although Israel is not a member of NATO, and although Hamas is not a state and the Palestinians are not a state, the fact is that it's on the front page every day, all of this. And if there were no NATO, if there were no defense alliance among the Western countries, how would that affect this ongoing war between Israel and Hamas? Jay, Israel and Hamas was an episode where you saw very strong American foreign policy and the power with which they come to help the Allies. The strong bond that America shares with allies and the advantage to have America as an ally was evident in this war. As soon as Israel had, we always talk about the six antagonistic neighbors waiting to pounce on it. America did not wait for any, yes, from anybody. The warships were right at the Israel door and helped arrived at the right time. Otherwise, you would have had a very explosive event after the October 7 attack on Israel, Jay. And, you know, this would have just gone on and on and on. So American foreign policy was at its best when it came to the aid of Israel. And that is when independent foreign policy talks, NATO would have had to have a little bit of discussion whether they want to go for Israel or whether they want to support Hamas. You know, you don't know this kind of thing. So that kind of independent foreign policy, NATO to an advantage for America is there, not there. It doesn't matter. America will always have a very strong foreign policy and they don't make two faces about. But for NATO, for Europe is very important. American foreign policy will never, never be weighed down by NATO implications. They have a very strong independent policy. Well, let me ask you this, though, and this is my last and perhaps my most challenging question to you today, Rupati. Okay, so it's hard to define war these days, because you can have a cyber war that destroys a country and its economy without any kinetic war, without any guns, actually. You can have various controversies and confrontations all over the world. But that may not be in the old definition of world war. It may be a lot of wars that are around the world. So it's hard to get our terms defined. But given the fact that the loss of NATO, the lack of NATO would embolden Russia and China to be more aggressive, and would fragment Europe not only militarily, but economically, and would probably have an effect on all of the countries that are connected, that are in Europe, the Baltics, they would be really afraid, the Balkans, and for that matter, Africa. And the likelihood is that the Middle East would somehow become even more of a hotbed for the lack of NATO. So with all of that, if we take NATO out of the equation, are we closer to world war? Most definitely. Most definitely, and even optimistically speaking, yes, because that would give a free hand to the holder of the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons. Russia is on a rampage right now with no reigning in power. They are literally doing what they want. And a nuclear war would erupt between a small trigger would give rise to this, because Putin, when right now he's in a comfortable position, he thinks he's doing good. But just imagine if he was in a compromising situation. He is not that kind of a person who would surrender. If he was going down, he would go down with the whole world with him. And he would, you know, he would not let, it would not be like Hitler in a bunker. It would be Putin with the world himself and taking everybody with him. He would just go on a nuclear rampage. And Ukraine would be the first one to do it. I mean, this kind of unpredictability of the minds is so evident because neither did he have any considerations of international strategy, nor did he have any considerations of what would happen if he would transgress Ukrainian borders. He has just done what he wants in the Ukraine war, and nobody has been able to shut him. Or, you know, nobody has been able to contain him. And as he moves on day by day, he gets more powerful. And the, you know, the legitimacy that he derives, he's declared as a war criminal. He goes for diplomatic visits to countries which do not have him as a war criminal. So that kind of maneuvering that he's and the comfortable level that he's reached in international politics today is very fine, Jay, because after attacking our country, you are still getting that kind of legitimacy and those kind of welcomes and that kind of support from your allies all over the world. Well, they want your oil and gas. They want your oil and gas. They want to make deals with you. And they come at this from a point of dismissing the United States and dismissing Europe and the West. So it's a fertile ground for him. The other point that comes out of what you're saying is that autocrats don't care, just as you said, robotic, autocrats don't care about humanity. They don't care to be humane. They care about themselves and their own power. And that's also a definition of Trump. So if the idea of an autocrat cares only about his own power and who has nuclear weapons and the button handy, then Trump is as much a risk as Putin. And the idea of Trump with the magic suitcase and the buttons on the nuclear weapons is really, really, really scary because he is an autocrat in every way. Well, here we are hoping that none of this will happen. But thank you for joining me in this inquiry into what would happen if we take out NATO. It's like having your teeth removed and you have to deal with a predatory monster without any teeth, that's what it's about. The word that comes to my mind is, I've heard this word a long time before, megalomaniacs. So we'll be having two megalomaniacs in the world soon. But whatever happens, Romani, we will keep on talking and inquiring and investigating and sharing our thoughts. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me, Aloha. Aloha.