One defense of Trump’s remarks about letting Russia do whatever the hell it wants to NATO members that don’t pay up has been, in effect, to claim that he is bluffing. Senator Lindsey Graham: “Give me a break — I mean, it’s Trump. All I can say is that while Trump was president nobody invaded anybody. I think the point is to, in his way, to get people to pay.” Senator Marco Rubio: “He told the story about how he used leverage to get people to step up to the plate and become more active in NATO. I have zero concern, because he’s been president before. I know exactly what he has done and will do with the NATO alliance.” (Both quoted from the New York Times.)

The problem with this defense is that the reassurances work contrary to belief in the efficacy of Trump’s alleged strategy. If we obviously don’t need to worry that Trump would abandon NATO allies, then it is obvious that he is bluffing, and the strategy won’t work. If is not obvious that he is bluffing, then our allies might feel the need to spend more on defense, but then we cannot feel reassured that he would not abandon them.

I also am not sure how one can know “exactly” what Trump “will do with the NATO alliance” even though one knows what he did in the past and even if one perfectly predicted it. It is strange to be asked to be reassured by a statement such as this, as if we were to take someone else’s faith in Trump on faith.

And even if in practice he would not do so, it is bad for Trump to induce his acolytes to think that we ought to abandon NATO allies for not paying up according to our timetable. It entrenches a dangerous assumption and reorganizes our discourse around it.

“Well, so what if we lose North Macedonia,” someone may be thinking. But Trump’s threat or bluff was general; it would apply to any NATO member.

“Well, why shouldn’t it?” someone may be thinking. Because, I would argue, the return we get on our defense spending on behalf of NATO allies exceeds the expense greatly, in the form of: (a) influence on global events; (b) a buffer zone between ourselves and hostile powers; (c) economic prosperity and peace within a large area of nations committed to liberty and representative government; and (d) a world more aligned with the political values in terms of which our nation defines itself, and which are sound.