That's a very passive voice way to talk about the United States attacking a NATO ally in order to steal their territory. The US committing an act of war against NATO should end NATO if the treaty is worth anything at all.
This type of thing should realistically end the United States. The country does not deserve to wield this amount of global power if it's going to engage in thug behavior.
The recklessness is astonishing. Threatening war over an inhospitable island that would be an economical to exploit risks, for example, ending the fab business in the US because ASML won't/can't send technicians. I suppose maps other than the Mercator projection are too woke.
Why not just expel them from NATO? A NATO-style alliance is obviously something Europe wants, see the rush to join after Russia turned more feral than usual, even by Sweden, neutral for centuries. If it isn't possible to expel a NATO member just dissolve NATO and reconstitute without the USA.
Use of normative MUST in politics means two things: firstly somebody concretely wants (or doesn't want for MUST NOT) which itself implies possible contentious views, opposites even, and secondly that a concrete alternative is proposed. It may be do nothing, it may be do something but the point is the alternative achieves the MUST or MUST NOT.
In this case, the proposed alternative is not do nothing. It's re-center NATO around European norms, goals and behaviours. Implicitly also a call for European NATO budgets to increase significantly, which Spain (for example) refused to do and which some European and wider partners have said MUST but.. have failed to do.
Also until recently the US government wanted that increase in spending too. Admittedly to buy US materiels but that's a detail in some ways.
He wants this. There is no imperative beyond OR ELSE.. outcomes.
