{"text":[[{"start":5.62,"text":"The writer is a scholar at the Brookings Institution and former senior US National Security Council official"}],[{"start":11.98,"text":"There have been conflicting reports of the reasons behind CIA director John Ratcliffe’s unusual trip to Moscow two weeks ago. Some suggest his purpose was to warn Vladimir Putin not to attack Nato territory, amid recent intelligence leaks that Russia was considering testing the alliance’s resolve. Others say that he went to share his assessment that Russia’s war against Ukraine is going badly and to urge Moscow to cut a deal. Still others point to the possibility that Ratcliffe went to press Russia to cut off support for Iran."}],[{"start":43.64,"text":"The truth may be some combination of the three. If so, it would be a welcome exception to the administration’s tendency to refrain from putting pressure on Moscow, despite its ongoing attacks on Ukraine and other atrocities."}],[{"start":56.44,"text":"Unfortunately, far from backing up Ratcliffe’s allegedly tough messaging with policies designed to enforce it, President Donald Trump is doing the opposite. His relentless bullying of the Europeans — even as drone attacks and explosions linked to Russia escalate alongside even bigger military threats — is weakening deterrence and increasing the risks of war. Far from giving Putin second thoughts about striking Nato territory or escalating in Ukraine, Trump’s actual policies give Putin further reason to believe he can do both without consequence."}],[{"start":89.14,"text":"Trump’s ambivalence about Nato’s Article 5 defence guarantee is longstanding. He has linked his willingness to help defend Nato members to them paying their “bills,” adding that if not Russians “could do whatever the hell they want”. Last year he claimed “there are numerous definitions of Article 5” — not exactly a clear commitment to respond forcefully if a Nato member were attacked. He has questioned the provenance of suspected Russian drone attacks on Nato territory, while at least initially taking Putin at his word when the latter alleged that Ukraine tried to attack his residence (which it did not). Angry at the lack of European support for his misadventure in Iran, Trump called Nato a “paper tiger” and its leaders “cowards”, and ordered a “reconsideration” of the organisation, leaving open the possibility of the US leaving it altogether."}],[{"start":134.54,"text":"Beyond the question of the US intention to defend Europe if attacked, there are now also growing doubts about its capability to do so effectively. Ignoring warnings about limited stockpiles of advanced munitions and missile defence interceptors, Trump proceeded with the war with Iran anyway, burning through munitions that would be critical in a conflict with Russia. In Europe, the focus has been on the alarming implications of such shortages for Ukraine. But they also weaken Nato itself."}],[{"start":164.62,"text":"To make matters worse, far from responding to concerns about Russian threats to Nato territory with renewed solidarity and a show of force, as one might expect from a US president, Trump is doubling down with the message that Europe is on its own. Indeed, only days after Ratcliffe went to Moscow, under-secretary of defence Elbridge Colby travelled to Brussels to meet Nato allies — not to bolster the alliance but to rebuke them for not spending enough on defence and to make clear the US does not plan to continue to play the lead role in European security."}],[{"start":198.14,"text":"Colby reiterated that US defence priorities “are on the western hemisphere and the First Island Chain [in Asia],” not in Europe. And he circulated a questionnaire to all allies about their support for the administration’s broader foreign policy objectives, making clear that a lack of full support would be taken into account as part of the US review of its forces in Europe, and could lead to troop withdrawals."}],[{"start":221.7,"text":"Deprioritising Nato and redeploying US troops away from Europe hardly seems an effective way of reinforcing deterrence against the risk of Russian attack. Hostile Russian actions against Nato members — often referred to by the euphemism of “hybrid attacks” — are no longer a threat but a reality. In the past few weeks alone, drones laden with explosives were found at Leipzig airport and in Bulgaria, and there have been explosions at weapons factories and other sensitive sites in Estonia, Italy, Slovakia and the Netherlands. Other Russia-linked actions have included sabotage of infrastructure, cyber attacks on government agencies and plots to assassinate defence industry executives."}],[{"start":261.78,"text":"It would be encouraging if the Trump administration were finally waking up to this reality and if Ratcliffe’s trip to Moscow were part of an effort to make clear that Putin would pay a terrible price if he attacked Nato territory. Sadly, there is little evidence this is the case, which must be a relief to Russia and increases the risk of war."}],[{"start":280.9,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1788764921_8346.mp3"}